[PATCH v4] ARM: LPAE: Fix mapping in alloc_init_pte for unaligned addresses

[catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:32:54PM +0000, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Catalin Marinas
> <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:07:16PM +0000, R Sricharan wrote:
> >> With LPAE enabled, alloc_init_section() does not map the
> >> entire address space for unaligned addresses.
> >>
> >> The issue also reproduced with CMA + LPAE. CMA tries to map 16MB
> >> with page granularity mappings during boot. alloc_init_pte()
> >> is called and out of 16MB, only 2MB gets mapped and rest remains
> >> unaccessible.
> >>
> >> Because of this OMAP5 boot is broken with CMA + LPAE enabled.
> >> Fix the issue by ensuring that the entire addresses are
> >> mapped.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com>
> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> >> Cc: Christoffer Dall <chris@cloudcar.com>
> >> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> >> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
> >> Tested-by: Christoffer Dall  <chris@cloudcar.com>
> >> ---
> >>  [V2] Moved the loop to alloc_init_pte as per Russell's
> >>      feedback and changed the subject accordingly.
> >>      Using PMD_XXX instead of SECTION_XXX to avoid
> >>      different loop increments with/without LPAE.
> >>
> >>  [v3] Removed the dummy variable phys and updated
> >>       the commit log for CMA case.
> >>
> >>  [v4] Resending with updated change log and
> >>       updating the tags.
> >>
> >>  arch/arm/mm/mmu.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++----
> >>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> >> index f8388ad..b94c313 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -569,11 +569,23 @@ static void __init alloc_init_pte(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> >>                                 unsigned long end, unsigned long pfn,
> >>                                 const struct mem_type *type)
> >>  {
> >> -     pte_t *pte = early_pte_alloc(pmd, addr, type->prot_l1);
> >> +     unsigned long next;
> >> +     pte_t *pte;
> >> +
> >>       do {
> >> -             set_pte_ext(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, __pgprot(type->prot_pte)), 0);
> >> -             pfn++;
> >> -     } while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
> >> +             if ((end-addr) & PMD_MASK)
> >> +                     next = (addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
> >> +             else
> >> +                     next = end;
> >
> > Can use pmd_addr_end(addr, end) here?
> >
> >> +             pte = early_pte_alloc(pmd, addr, type->prot_l1);
> >> +             do {
> >> +                     set_pte_ext(pte, pfn_pte(pfn,
> >> +                                     __pgprot(type->prot_pte)), 0);
> >> +                     pfn++;
> >> +             } while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != next);
> >> +
> >> +     } while (pmd++, addr = next, addr != end);
> >
> > I would actually keep the loop in alloc_init_section(). There is even a
> > comment in there saying "no need to loop" but you actually moved the
> > loop in alloc_init_pte().
> >
> > I'm proposing a simpler patch below (only lightly tested on VE/C-A9).
> > The only difference is that we do more flush_pmd_entry() calls but I'm
> > not really bothered, it's during boot and you won't notice.
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > index 9c82f98..eaa8ba8 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > @@ -205,6 +205,11 @@ static inline pte_t *pmd_page_vaddr(pmd_t pmd)
> >
> >  #define pte_present_user(pte)  (pte_present(pte) && (pte_val(pte) & L_PTE_USER))
> >
> > +#define section_addr_end(addr, end)                                            \
> > +({     unsigned long __boundary = ((addr) + SECTION_SIZE) & SECTION_MASK;      \
> > +       (__boundary - 1 < (end) - 1)? __boundary: (end);                        \
> > +})
> > +
> >  #if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ < 6
> >  static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval)
> >  {
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > index 9f06102..0d0faed 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > @@ -581,34 +581,19 @@ static void __init alloc_init_section(pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr,
> >                                       const struct mem_type *type)
> >  {
> >         pmd_t *pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
> > +       unsigned long next;
> >
> > -       /*
> > -        * Try a section mapping - end, addr and phys must all be aligned
> > -        * to a section boundary.  Note that PMDs refer to the individual
> > -        * L1 entries, whereas PGDs refer to a group of L1 entries making
> > -        * up one logical pointer to an L2 table.
> > -        */
> > -       if (type->prot_sect && ((addr | end | phys) & ~SECTION_MASK) == 0) {
> > -               pmd_t *p = pmd;
> > -
> > -#ifndef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
> > -               if (addr & SECTION_SIZE)
> > -                       pmd++;
> > -#endif
> > -
> > -               do {
> > +       do {
> > +               next = section_addr_end(addr, end);
> > +               /* try section mapping first */
> > +               if (((addr | next | phys) & ~SECTION_MASK) == 0) {
> >                         *pmd = __pmd(phys | type->prot_sect);
> > -                       phys += SECTION_SIZE;
> > -               } while (pmd++, addr += SECTION_SIZE, addr != end);
> > -
> > -               flush_pmd_entry(p);
> > -       } else {
> > -               /*
> > -                * No need to loop; pte's aren't interested in the
> > -                * individual L1 entries.
> > -                */
> > -               alloc_init_pte(pmd, addr, end, __phys_to_pfn(phys), type);
> > -       }
> > +                       flush_pmd_entry(pmd);
> > +               } else {
> > +                       alloc_init_pte(pmd, addr, next, __phys_to_pfn(phys), type);
> 
> aren't you wasting memory here? The pte doesn't alloc a full page, but
> the memblock allocator allocates a full page right?
> 
> I thought this was the rationale behind Russell's previous comments on
> Santosh's earlier patch version.

You are right, it's allocating more ptes. Than we can use pmd_addr_end.
I'll go back to the code.

-- 
Catalin