linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:14:49 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210812211449.5bsblj6lphtu7zsd@box.shutemov.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <142bccc6-0e67-dfc1-9069-b773c2bad585@intel.com>

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:50:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> ...
> > +void mark_unaccepted(struct boot_params *params, u64 start, u64 num)
> > +{
> 
> Some of these interfaces like accept_memory() take a start/end physical
> address.  Having this take a "num pages" is bound to cause confusion.
> Could you make these all consistently take start/end physical addresses?

Okay.

> 
> > +	u64 end = start + num * PAGE_SIZE;
> > +	unsigned int npages;
> 
> 
> Could you comment those, please?
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * The accepted memory bitmap only works at PMD_SIZE
> 	 * granularity.  If a request comes in to mark memory
> 	 * as unaccepted which is not PMD_SIZE-aligned, simply
> 	 * accept the memory now since it can not be *marked* as
> 	 * unaccepted.
> 	 */
> 
> Then go on to comment the three cases:
> 
> 	/* Check for ranges which do not span a whole PMD_SIZE area: */

Okay.

> > +	if ((start & PMD_MASK) == (end & PMD_MASK)) {
> > +		npages = (end - start) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > +		__accept_memory(start, start + npages * PAGE_SIZE);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> 
> Hmm, is it possible to have this case hit, but neither of the two below
> cases?  This seems to be looking for a case where the range is somehow
> entirely contained in one PMD_SIZE area, but where it doesn't consume a
> whole area.
> 
> Wouldn't that mean that 'start' or 'end' must be unaligned?

The problem is that if both of them unaligned round_up() and round_down()
in the cases below would step outside the requested range.

> > +	if (start & ~PMD_MASK) {
> > +		npages = (round_up(start, PMD_SIZE) - start) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > +		__accept_memory(start, start + npages * PAGE_SIZE);
> > +		start = round_up(start, PMD_SIZE);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (end & ~PMD_MASK) {
> > +		npages = (end - round_down(end, PMD_SIZE)) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > +		end = round_down(end, PMD_SIZE);
> > +		__accept_memory(end, end + npages * PAGE_SIZE);
> > +	}
> > +	npages = (end - start) / PMD_SIZE;
> > +	bitmap_set((unsigned long *)params->unaccepted_memory,
> > +		   start / PMD_SIZE, npages);
> > +}
> 
> Even though it's changed right there, it's a bit cruel to change the
> units of 'npages' right in the middle of a function.  It's just asking
> for bugs.
> 
> It would only take a single extra variable declaration to make this
> unambiguous:
> 
> 	u64 nr_unaccepted_bits;
> 
> or something, then you can do:
> 
> 	nr_unaccepted_bits = (end - start) / PMD_SIZE;
> 	bitmap_set((unsigned long *)params->unaccepted_memory,
> 		   start / PMD_SIZE, nr_unaccepted_bits);

Okay.

> 
> ...
> >  static efi_status_t allocate_e820(struct boot_params *params,
> > +				  struct efi_boot_memmap *map,
> >  				  struct setup_data **e820ext,
> >  				  u32 *e820ext_size)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long map_size, desc_size, map_key;
> >  	efi_status_t status;
> > -	__u32 nr_desc, desc_version;
> > -
> > -	/* Only need the size of the mem map and size of each mem descriptor */
> > -	map_size = 0;
> > -	status = efi_bs_call(get_memory_map, &map_size, NULL, &map_key,
> > -			     &desc_size, &desc_version);
> > -	if (status != EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL)
> > -		return (status != EFI_SUCCESS) ? status : EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> 
> I noticed that there's no reference to EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL in the hunks
> you added back.  That makes me a bit nervous that this is going to
> unintentionally change behavior.
> 
> It might be worth having a preparatory reorganization patch for
> allocate_e820() before this new feature is added to make this more clear.

Okay. Will do.
> 
> > +	__u32 nr_desc;
> > +	bool unaccepted_memory_present = false;
> > +	u64 max_addr = 0;
> > +	int i;
> >  
> > -	nr_desc = map_size / desc_size + EFI_MMAP_NR_SLACK_SLOTS;
> > +	status = efi_get_memory_map(map);
> > +	if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > +		return status;
> >  
> > -	if (nr_desc > ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table)) {
> > -		u32 nr_e820ext = nr_desc - ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table);
> > +	nr_desc = *map->map_size / *map->desc_size;
> > +	if (nr_desc > ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table) - EFI_MMAP_NR_SLACK_SLOTS) {
> > +		u32 nr_e820ext = nr_desc - ARRAY_SIZE(params->e820_table) -
> > +			EFI_MMAP_NR_SLACK_SLOTS;
> >  
> >  		status = alloc_e820ext(nr_e820ext, e820ext, e820ext_size);
> >  		if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> >  			return status;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY))
> > +		return EFI_SUCCESS;
> > +
> > +	/* Check if there's any unaccepted memory and find the max address */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nr_desc; i++) {
> > +		efi_memory_desc_t *d;
> > +
> > +		d = efi_early_memdesc_ptr(*map->map, *map->desc_size, i);
> > +		if (d->type == EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY)
> > +			unaccepted_memory_present = true;
> > +		if (d->phys_addr + d->num_pages * PAGE_SIZE > max_addr)
> > +			max_addr = d->phys_addr + d->num_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
> > +	}
> 
> This 'max_addr' variable looks a bit funky.
> 
> It *seems* like it's related only to EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY, but it's not
> underneath the EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY check.  Is this somehow assuming
> that once unaccepted memory as been found that *all* memory found in
> later descriptors at higher addresses is also going to be unaccepted?

You got it right below :P

> > +	/*
> > +	 * If unaccepted memory present allocate a bitmap to track what memory
> > +	 * has to be accepted before access.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * One bit in the bitmap represents 2MiB in the address space: one 4k
> > +	 * page is enough to track 64GiB or physical address space.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * In the worst case scenario -- a huge hole in the middle of the
> > +	 * address space -- we would need 256MiB to handle 4PiB of the address
> > +	 * space.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * TODO: handle situation if params->unaccepted_memory has already set.
> > +	 * It's required to deal with kexec.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (unaccepted_memory_present) {
> > +		unsigned long *unaccepted_memory = NULL;
> > +		u64 size = DIV_ROUND_UP(max_addr, PMD_SIZE * BITS_PER_BYTE);
> 
> Oh, so the bitmap has to be present for *all* memory, not just
> unaccepted memory.  So, we really do need to know the 'max_addr' so that
> we can allocate the bitmap for so that can be marked in the bitmap has
> having been accepted.

Right we need a bit for every 2M. Accepted or not.

> > +		status = efi_allocate_pages(size,
> > +					    (unsigned long *)&unaccepted_memory,
> > +					    ULONG_MAX);
> > +		if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > +			return status;
> > +		memset(unaccepted_memory, 0, size);
> > +		params->unaccepted_memory = (u64)unaccepted_memory;
> > +	}
> 
> It might be nice to refer to setup_e820() here to mention that it is the
> thing that actually fills out the bitmap.

Okay.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov


  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-12 21:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-10  6:26 [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10  6:26 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add " Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10  7:48   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-10 15:02     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 15:21       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-12 20:34         ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 18:13   ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 18:30     ` Andi Kleen
2021-08-10 18:56       ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 19:23         ` Andi Kleen
2021-08-10 19:46           ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 21:20             ` Andi Kleen
2021-08-12  8:19               ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-12 14:14                 ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-12 20:49                   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-12 20:59                     ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-12 21:23                       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-13 14:49                   ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-17 15:00                     ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-19  9:55                       ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-19 10:06                         ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-10 20:50     ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-12 21:08       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10  6:26 ` [PATCH 2/5] efi/x86: Implement " Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 17:50   ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-12 21:14     ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2021-08-12 21:43       ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 18:30   ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 19:08     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 19:19       ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-12 21:17         ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10  6:26 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86/boot/compressed: Handle " Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10  6:26 ` [PATCH 4/5] x86/mm: Provide helpers for " Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 18:16   ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-12 20:31     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10  6:26 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86/tdx: Unaccepted memory support Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 14:08 ` [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 15:15   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 15:51     ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 17:31       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 17:36         ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 17:51           ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-10 18:19             ` Dave Hansen
2021-08-10 18:39               ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-12  8:23 ` Joerg Roedel
2021-08-12 10:10   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-12 19:33     ` Andi Kleen
2021-08-12 20:22       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-08-13 14:56         ` Joerg Roedel

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=20210812211449.5bsblj6lphtu7zsd@box.shutemov.name \
    --to=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dfaggioli@suse.com \
    --cc=jroedel@suse.de \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=varad.gautam@suse.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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).