From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 13:51:39 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: split off early mapping code from early_fixmap_init() In-Reply-To: References: <1447672998-20981-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1447672998-20981-4-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20151203121840.GB28731@leverpostej> <20151208124016.GH19612@arm.com> Message-ID: <20151208135139.GJ19612@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 8 December 2015 at 13:40, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:40PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> Apologies that it's taken me so long to get around to this... > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:23:14PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> > This splits off and generalises the population of the statically > >> > allocated fixmap page tables so that we may reuse it later for > >> > the linear mapping once we move the kernel text mapping out of it. > >> > > >> > This also involves taking into account that table entries at any of > >> > the levels we are populating may have been populated already, since > >> > the fixmap mapping might not be disjoint up to the pgd level anymore > >> > from other early mappings. > >> > >> As a heads-up, for avoiding TLB conflicts, I'm currently working on > >> alternative way of creating the kernel page tables which will definitely > >> conflict here, and may or may not supercede this approach. > > > > Given that the Christmas break is around the corner and your TLB series > > is probably going to take some time to get right, I suggest we persevere > > with Ard's current patch series for 4.5 and merge the TLB conflict solution > > for 4.6. I don't want us to end up in a situation where this is needlessly > > blocked on something that isn't quite ready. > > > > Any objections? If not, Ard -- can you post a new version of this, please? > > > > Happy to post a new version, with the following remarks > - my current private tree has evolved in the mean time, and I am now > putting the kernel image at the base of the vmalloc region (and the > module region right before) > - I think Mark's changes would allow me to deobfuscate the VA bias > that redirects __va() translations into the kernel VA space rather > than the linear mapping I'll leave that up to you. I'm just trying to avoid you growing a dependency on something that's unlikely to make it for 4.5. If Mark separates out the parts you need, perhaps that offers us some middle ground. Will