linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 5/6] arm64: mm: Implement 4 levels of translation tables
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 01:13:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140507081316.GI3066@lvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001c01cf69ac$01be8bf0$053ba3d0$@samsung.com>

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 01:22:50PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 7:49 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:34:16AM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> > > This patch implements 4 levels of translation tables since 3 levels of
> > > page tables with 4KB pages cannot support 40-bit physical address
> > > space described in [1] due to the following issue.
> > >
> > > It is a restriction that kernel logical memory map with 4KB + 3 levels
> > > (0xffffffc000000000-0xffffffffffffffff) cannot cover RAM region from
> > > 544GB to 1024GB in [1]. Specifically, ARM64 kernel fails to create
> > > mapping for this region in map_mem function since __phys_to_virt for
> > > this region reaches to address overflow.
> > >
> > > If SoC design follows the document, [1], over 32GB RAM would be placed
> > > from 544GB. Even 64GB system is supposed to use the region from 544GB
> > > to 576GB for only 32GB RAM. Naturally, it would reach to enable 4
> > > levels of page tables to avoid hacking __virt_to_phys and __phys_to_virt.
> > >
> > > However, it is recommended 4 levels of page table should be only
> > > enabled if memory map is too sparse or there is about 512GB RAM.
> > 
> > Who recommends this then?  This paragraph just confuses me.
> 
> It is a paraphrase of Catalin's comment:
> "I agree, we should only enable 4-levels of page table if we have close
> to 512GB of RAM or the range is too sparse but I would actually push
> back on the hardware guys to keep it tighter."
> 
> The above message comes from the discussion on 4 levels.
> http://www.spinics.net/linux/lists/arm-kernel/msg319055.html
> 
Hmm, I find it just confusing in the commit message and think it's more
clear if you take it out.  The only relevant bits here are that if you
want to be able to address an address map of a certain size, you need
this feature.  It should be enabled on all systems that have such
address maps to take advantage of the available hardware - arguing to
hardware vendors on which systems to produce is fine, but a Linux commit
message doesn't have to iterate on it - IMHO.

-Christoffer

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-07  8:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-01  2:34 [PATCH v5 5/6] arm64: mm: Implement 4 levels of translation tables Jungseok Lee
2014-05-06 10:49 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-05-07  4:22   ` Jungseok Lee
2014-05-07  8:13     ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2014-05-06 12:01 ` Steve Capper
2014-05-07  4:27   ` Jungseok Lee

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=20140507081316.GI3066@lvm \
    --to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).