From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lauraa@codeaurora.org (Laura Abbott) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:54:38 -0800 Subject: [PATCHv2] mm: Don't offset memmap for flatmem In-Reply-To: <54D18319.40602@codeaurora.org> References: <1421804273-29947-1-git-send-email-lauraa@codeaurora.org> <1421888500-24364-1-git-send-email-lauraa@codeaurora.org> <20150122162021.aa861aeb53c22206a19ebbcb@linux-foundation.org> <54C196D0.6040900@codeaurora.org> <54C20EEC.1060809@suse.cz> <20150126155617.GA2395@suse.de> <54CA3202.8020609@suse.cz> <54D18319.40602@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <54ECD6FE.5060503@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Reviving this thread because I don't think it ever got resolved. On 2/3/2015 6:25 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 1/29/2015 5:13 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 01/26/2015 04:56 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:05:48AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >>>> On 01/23/2015 01:33 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: >>>>> On 1/22/2015 4:20 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think v2 addressed Vlastimil's review comment? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We're still adding the offset to node_mem_map and then subtracting it from >>>>> just mem_map. Did I miss another comment somewhere? >>>> >>>> Yes that was addressed, thanks. But I don't feel comfortable acking >>>> it yet, as I have no idea if we are doing the right thing for >>>> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP && CONFIG_FLATMEM case here. >>>> >>>> Also putting the CONFIG_FLATMEM && !CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP >>>> under the "if (page_to_pfn(mem_map) != pgdat->node_start_pfn)" will >>>> probably do the right thing, but looks like a weird test for this >>>> case here. >>>> >>>> I have no good suggestion though, so let's CC Mel who apparently >>>> wrote the ARCH_PFN_OFFSET correction? >>>> >>> >>> I don't recall introducing ARCH_PFN_OFFSET, are you sure it was me? I'm just >>> back today after been offline a week so didn't review the patch but IIRC, >>> ARCH_PFN_OFFSET deals with the case where physical memory does not start >>> at 0. Without the offset, virtual _PAGE_OFFSET would not physical page 0. >>> I don't recall it being related to the alignment of node 0 so if there >>> are crashes due to misalignment of node 0 and the fix is ARCH_PFN_OFFSET >>> related then I'm surprised. >> >> You're right that ARCH_PFN_OFFSET wasn't added by you, but by commit >> 467bc461d2 which was a bugfix to your commit c713216dee, which did >> introduce the mem_map correction code, and after which the code looked like: >> >> mem_map = NODE_DATA(0)->node_mem_map; >> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP >> if (page_to_pfn(mem_map) != pgdat->node_start_pfn) >> mem_map -= pgdat->node_start_pfn; >> #endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP */ >> >> >> It's from 2006 so I can't expect you remember the details, but I had some >> trouble finding out what this does. I assume it makes sure that mem_map points >> to struct page corresponding to pfn 0, because that's what translations using >> mem_map expect. >> But pgdat->node_mem_map points to struct page corresponding to >> pgdat->node_start_pfn, which might not be 0. So it subtracts node_start_pfn >> to fix that. This is OK, as the node_mem_map is allocated (in this very >> function) with padding so that it covers a MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES aligned area >> where node_mem_map may point to the middle of it. >> >> Commit 467bc461d2 fixed this in case the first pfn is not 0, but ARCH_PFN_OFFSET. >> So mem_map points to struct page corresponding to pfn=ARCH_PFN_OFFSET, which >> is OK. But I still have few doubts: >> >> 1) The "if (page_to_pfn(mem_map) != pgdat->node_start_pfn)" sort of silently >> assumes that mem_map is allocated at the beginning of the node, i.e. at >> pgdat->node_start_pfn. And the only reason for this if-condition to be true, >> is that we haven't corrected the page_to_pfn translation, which uses mem_map. >> Is this assumption always OK to do? Shouldn't the if-condition be instead about >> pgdat->node_start_pfn not being aligned? >> >> 2) The #ifdef guard is about CONFIG_ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP, which is nowadays called > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP. But shouldn't it be #ifdef FLATMEM instead? >> After all, we are correcting value of mem_map based on page_to_pfn code >> variant used on FLATMEM. arm doesn't define >> CONFIG_ARCH_POPULATES_NODE_MAP but apparently needs this correction. >> > > Just doing #ifdef FLATMEM doesn't work because ARCH_PFN_OFFSET doesn't > seem to be picked up properly for NOMMU arches properly. Probably just > missing a header somewhere. > >> 3) The node_mem_map allocation code aligns the allocation to MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES, >> so the offset between the start of the allocated map and where node_mem_map >> points to will be up to MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES. >> However, here we subtract (in current kernel) (pgdat->node_start_pfn - ARCH_PFN_OFFSET). >> That looks like another silent assumption, that pgdat->node_start_pfn is always >> between ARCH_PFN_OFFSET and ARCH_PFN_OFFSET + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES. If it were >> larger, the mem_map correction would subtract too much and end up below what >> was allocated for node_mem_map, no? The bug report behind this patch said that >> first 2MB of memory was reserved using "no-map flag using DT". Unless this somehow >> translates to ARCH_PFN_OFFSET at build time, we would underflow mem_map, right? >> Maybe I'm just overly paranoid here and of course ARCH_PFN_OFFSET is determined >> properly on arm... >> >> If anyone can confirm my doubts or point me to what I'm missing, thanks. > > ARCH_PFN_OFFSET should always be the lowest PFN in the system, otherwise > I think plenty of other things are broken given how many architectures > make this assumption. That said, I don't think subtracting ARCH_PFN_OFFSET > makes it obvious why the adjustment is being made. > > Thanks, > Laura > I was incorrect before: it isn't just NOMMU but architectures that don't use asm-generic/memory_model.h which failed to compile. I could respin with more ifdefery around the ARCH_PFN_OFFSET if that sounds reasonable. Thanks, Laura -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project