From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>
Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
bhupesh.linux@gmail.com, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Remove MAX_USER_VA_BITS definition
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:27:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191105092701.GD4743@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1572904606-27961-1-git-send-email-bhsharma@redhat.com>
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 03:26:46AM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> commit 9b31cf493ffa ("arm64: mm: Introduce MAX_USER_VA_BITS definition")
> introduced the MAX_USER_VA_BITS definition, which was used to support
> the arm64 mm use-cases where the user-space could use 52-bit virtual
> addresses whereas the kernel-space would still could a maximum of 48-bit
> virtual addressing.
>
> But, now with commit b6d00d47e81a ("arm64: mm: Introduce 52-bit Kernel
> VAs"), we removed the 52-bit user/48-bit kernel kconfig option and hence
> there is no longer any scenario where user VA != kernel VA size
> (even with CONFIG_ARM64_FORCE_52BIT enabled, the same is true).
>
> Hence we can do away with the MAX_USER_VA_BITS macro as it is equal to
> VA_BITS (maximum VA space size) in all possible use-cases. Note that
> even though the 'vabits_actual' value would be 48 for arm64 hardware
> which don't support LVA-8.2 extension (even when CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_52
> is enabled), VA_BITS would still be set to a value 52. Hence this change
> would be safe in all possible VA address space combinations.
>
> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org
> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>
As the commit message says, there should be no functional change as a
result of this patch, and it looks like a nice cleanup to me:
Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Mark.
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 6 ------
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
> index c23c47360664..a4f9ca5479b0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
> @@ -69,12 +69,6 @@
> #define KERNEL_START _text
> #define KERNEL_END _end
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_52
> -#define MAX_USER_VA_BITS 52
> -#else
> -#define MAX_USER_VA_BITS VA_BITS
> -#endif
> -
> /*
> * Generic and tag-based KASAN require 1/8th and 1/16th of the kernel virtual
> * address space for the shadow region respectively. They can bloat the stack
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h
> index 3df60f97da1f..d9fbd433cc17 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h
> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
> #define PGDIR_SHIFT ARM64_HW_PGTABLE_LEVEL_SHIFT(4 - CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS)
> #define PGDIR_SIZE (_AC(1, UL) << PGDIR_SHIFT)
> #define PGDIR_MASK (~(PGDIR_SIZE-1))
> -#define PTRS_PER_PGD (1 << (MAX_USER_VA_BITS - PGDIR_SHIFT))
> +#define PTRS_PER_PGD (1 << (VA_BITS - PGDIR_SHIFT))
>
> /*
> * Section address mask and size definitions.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> index 5623685c7d13..586fcd4b1965 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> #define __ASM_PROCESSOR_H
>
> #define KERNEL_DS UL(-1)
> -#define USER_DS ((UL(1) << MAX_USER_VA_BITS) - 1)
> +#define USER_DS ((UL(1) << VA_BITS) - 1)
>
> /*
> * On arm64 systems, unaligned accesses by the CPU are cheap, and so there is
> --
> 2.7.4
>
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-05 9:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-04 21:56 [PATCH] arm64: mm: Remove MAX_USER_VA_BITS definition Bhupesh Sharma
2019-11-05 9:27 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2019-11-06 11:23 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191105092701.GD4743@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=bhsharma@redhat.com \
--cc=bhupesh.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steve.capper@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox