From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1905AC433DF for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB79A206E9 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DB79A206E9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=de.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4323C6B0002; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3E2DC6B0005; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2AA486B0006; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0195.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.195]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B466B0002 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2CB824556B for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:29 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76972243698.04.trail65_0108d7126e57 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843908001B1E for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:29 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: trail65_0108d7126e57 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6627 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf45.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05QIWiWv128475; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:28 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31wm7x3n7c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:28 -0400 Received: from m0098413.ppops.net (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 05QIYUIh140679; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:27 -0400 Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31wm7x3n6n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Jun 2020 14:46:27 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05QIipO0007348; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:25 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31v7fwh9fy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:25 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 05QIkMj264618732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:23 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0C9AE045; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A071AE058; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from thinkpad (unknown [9.171.60.45]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:46:22 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 20:46:21 +0200 From: Gerald Schaefer To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] s390x/vmem: get rid of memory segment list Message-ID: <20200626204621.55248f99@thinkpad> In-Reply-To: <20200626192253.2281d95d@thinkpad> References: <20200625150029.45019-1-david@redhat.com> <20200626192253.2281d95d@thinkpad> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216,18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-26_10:2020-06-26,2020-06-26 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006260127 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 843908001B1E X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:22:53 +0200 Gerald Schaefer wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 17:00:29 +0200 > David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > I can't come up with a satisfying reason why we still need the memory > > segment list. We used to represent in the list: > > - boot memory > > - standby memory added via add_memory() > > - loaded dcss segments > > > > When loading/unloading dcss segments, we already track them in a > > separate list and check for overlaps > > (arch/s390/mm/extmem.c:segment_overlaps_others()) when loading segments. > > > > The overlap check was introduced for some segments in > > commit b2300b9efe1b ("[S390] dcssblk: add >2G DCSSs support and stacked > > contiguous DCSSs support.") > > and was extended to cover all dcss segments in > > commit ca57114609d1 ("s390/extmem: remove code for 31 bit addressing > > mode"). > > > > Although I doubt that overlaps with boot memory and standby memory > > are relevant, let's reshuffle the checks in load_segment() to request > > the resource first. This will bail out in case we have overlaps with > > other resources (esp. boot memory and standby memory). The order > > is now different compared to segment_unload() and segment_unload(), but > > that should not matter. > > You are right that this is ancient, but I think "overlaps with boot > memory and standby memory" were very relevant, that might actually > have been the initial reason for this in ancient times (but I do not > really remember). > > With DCSS you can define a fixed start address where the segment will > be loaded into guest address space. The current code queries this address > and directly gives it to vmem_add_mapping(), at least if there is no > overlap with other DCSS segments. If there would be an overlap with > boot memory, and not checked / rejected in vmem_add_mapping(), the > following dcss_diag() would probably fail because AFAIR z/VM will > not allow loading a DCSS with guest memory overlap. So far, so good, > but the vmem_remove_mapping() on the exit path would then remove > (part of) boot memory. > > That being said, I think your patch prevents this by moving > request_resource() up, so we should not call vmem_add_mapping() > for such overlaps. I still want to give it some test, but need > to find / setup systems with that ancient technology first :-) > Verified with DCSS overlapping boot and standby memory, works fine. As expected, the error message changes, but I don't think that is a problem, as long as you also remove the old -ENOSPC case / comment in arch/s390/mm/extmem.c. It is actually more correct now I guess, -ENOSPC doesn't look like the correct return value anyway. Thanks for cleaning up! Looks good to me, and removes > 100 LOC, unless Heiko remembers some other issues from ancient times. Reviewed-by: Gerald Schaefer Tested-by: Gerald Schaefer [DCSS]