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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2373C433EF for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 15:43:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3D9F16B0074; Thu, 12 May 2022 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 389C06B0075; Thu, 12 May 2022 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 229D56B0078; Thu, 12 May 2022 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1203E6B0074 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 11:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB3231527 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 15:43:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79457509404.07.40D76A6 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530D91C000A for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 15:42:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1652370179; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rJMSQMAYOqjlOrVck6Lf44hI9r9y1hhTrqfXrgRag60=; b=QBhnRH7Tzm0dBzZ6HfLY6zNXD//s9dyQbgL5e1jaXzPWiD9gSRgFkYXRfqjxsLmaWMY9bv /dL93oCopwhZYNXCdlWriPW5m762gw5KvUmZmsvHstcYkmwyUqtXF1Dqp6VGvIWDBnRloR n1GP0O/EuoDpWXbP+cBLe3ex/usG7X0g4K9S+XmCwDifTgw1k8M/CPwqzYjTFRvY8H1ncg fpIMekaAHCyeVVNOrSdJLsH3HQBplMzinxcfScJQiew1lXe634mY8C/0Z3KHhYFu8dkKz/ nHIvyjfg6ImpEWdft28wbyUvrZHFULmj305Ajxbv3QKAGo17ZhuEtG9Cmg989g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1652370179; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rJMSQMAYOqjlOrVck6Lf44hI9r9y1hhTrqfXrgRag60=; b=lcmWtNHFzkfy+KNsR3x83IgX/lN1LP/vq/mkPgubu9aGgWC8sxJikIjATnmSSZlhXMEMzb 3u/K4K7ggNxJGEBw== To: Peter Zijlstra , "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , x86@kernel.org, Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , "H . J . Lu" , Andi Kleen , Rick Edgecombe , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFCv2 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling In-Reply-To: <20220511064943.GR76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20220511022751.65540-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220511064943.GR76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 17:42:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87pmkivjst.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Authentication-Results: imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b=QBhnRH7T; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b=lcmWtNHF; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of tglx@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=tglx@linutronix.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 530D91C000A X-Stat-Signature: fu8ufujnuujfzwx89geqmk9tt595zact X-HE-Tag: 1652370172-17528 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 Wed, May 11 2022 at 08:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:27:40AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >> Hi all. Here's long overdue update on LAM enabling. >> >> # Description # >> >> Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to >> 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated >> address bits for metadata. >> >> The patchset brings support for LAM for userspace addresses. >> >> The most sensitive part of enabling is change in tlb.c, where CR3 flags >> get set. Please take a look that what I'm doing makes sense. >> >> The feature competes for bits with 5-level paging: LAM_U48 makes it >> impossible to map anything about 47-bits. The patchset made these >> capability mutually exclusive: whatever used first wins. LAM_U57 can be >> combined with mappings above 47-bits. > > So aren't we creating a problem with LAM_U48 where programs relying on > it are of limited sustainability? > > Any such program simply *cannot* run on 5 level pagetables. Why do we > want to do this? More bits are better :) Seriously, I agree that restricting it to LAM57, which gives us 6 bits, makes a lot of sense _and_ makes the whole thing way simpler. So supporting both needs a truly good justification and a real world use case. Thanks, tglx