[PATCH 6/8] ARM: mm: LPAE: Correct virt_to_phys patching for 64 bit physical addresses

[r.sricharan@ti.com (Sricharan R)]

On Wednesday 24 July 2013 05:20 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:19 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 23 July 2013 09:10 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Sricharan R <r.sricharan@ti.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The current phys_to_virt patching mechanism does not work
>>>>> for 64 bit physical addressesp. Note that constant used in add/sub
>>>>> instructions is encoded in to the last 8 bits of the opcode. So shift
>>>>> the _pv_offset constant by 24 to get it in to the correct place.
>>>>>
>>>>> The v2p patching mechanism patches the higher 32bits of physical
>>>>> address with a constant. While this is correct, in those platforms
>>>>> where the lowmem addressable physical memory spawns across 4GB boundary,
>>>>> a carry bit can be produced as a result of addition of lower 32bits.
>>>>> This has to be taken in to account and added in to the upper. The patched
>>>>> __pv_offset and va are added in lower 32bits, where __pv_offset can be
>>>>> in two's complement form when PA_START < VA_START and that can result
>>>>> in a false carry bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g PA = 0x80000000 VA = 0xC0000000
>>>>> __pv_offset = PA - VA = 0xC0000000 (2's complement)
>>>>>
>>>>> So adding __pv_offset + VA should never result in a true overflow. So in
>>>>> order to differentiate between a true carry, a extra flag __pv_sign_flag
>>>>> is introduced.
>>> First of all thanks for the review.
>>>  
>>>> I'm still wondering if this is worth bothering about.
>>>>
>>>> If PA = 0x80000000 and VA = 0xC0000000 there will never be a real carry 
>>>> to propagate to the high word of the physical address as the VA space 
>>>> cannot be larger than 0x40000000.
>>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> So is there really a case where:
>>>>
>>>> 1) physical memory is crossing the 4GB mark, and ...
>>>>
>>>> 2) physical memory start address is higher than virtual memory start 
>>>>    address needing a carry due to the 32-bit add overflow?
>>>>
>>> Consider below two cases of memory layout apart from one mentioned
>>> above where the carry is bit irrelevant as you rightly said.
>>>
>>> 1) PA = 0x8_0000_0000, VA= 0xC000_0000, absolute pv_offset = 0x7_4000_0000
>> This can be patched as:
>>
>> 	mov	phys_hi, #0x8
>> 	add	phys_lo, virt, #0x40000000  @ carry ignored
>>
>>> 2) PA = 0x2_8000_0000, VA= 0xC000_000, absolute pv_offset = 0x1_C000_0000
>> 	mov	phys_hi, #0x2
>> 	add	phys_lo, virt, #0xc0000000  @ carry ignored
>>
>>> In both of these cases there a true carry which needs to be
>>> considered.
>> Well, not really.  However, if you have:
>>
>> 3) PA = 0x2_8000_0000, VA = 0x4000-0000, pv_offset = 0x2-4000-0000
>>
>> ... then you need:
>>
>> 	mov	phys_hi, #0x2
>> 	adds	phys_lo, virt, #0x40000000
>> 	adc	phys_hi, phys_hi, #0
>>
>> My question is: how likely is this?
>>
>> What is your actual physical memory start address?
>  Agreed.  In our case we do not have the Physical address crossing across
>   4GB. So ignoring the carry would have be been OK. But we are
>  also addressing the other case where it would really crossover.
>
>> If we really need to cope with the carry, then the __pv_sign_flag should 
>> instead be represented in pv_offset directly:
>>
>> Taking example #2 above, that would be:
>>
>> 	mov	phys_hi, #0x1
>> 	adds	phys_lo, virt, #0xc0000000
>> 	adc	phys_hi, phys_hi, #0
>>
>> If PA = 0x8000-0000 and VA = 0xc000-0000 then pv_offset is 
>> 0xffff-ffff-c000-0000, meaning:
>>
>> 	mvn	phys_hi, #0
>> 	add	phys_lo, virt, #0xc0000000
>> 	adc	phys_hi, phys_hi, #0
>>
>> So that would require a special case in the patching code where a mvn 
>> with 0 is used if the high part of pv_offset is 0xffffffff.
>>
>>
>> Nicolas
> Extending pv_offset to 64bit is really neat way. When PA > VA, then pv_offset
> is going to be actual value and not 2's complement. Fine here.
> When running from higher physical address space, we will always fall here.
>
> So for the second case where pv_offset is 0xffffffff .., (PA < VA)
> is a problem only when we run from lower physical address. So we can safely
> assume that the higher 32bits of PA are '0' and stub it initially. In this way we
> can avoid the special case.
   Sorry, I missed one more point here. In the second case,we should patch it with
   0x0 when (PA > VA) and with 0xffffffff when (PA < VA).

Regards,
 Sricharan