Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] arm64: mmu: avoid allocating pages while splitting the linear mapping

Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-20T11:01:32Z

> >>>> On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 08:23:27PM +0000, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> >>>>> +static int __init linear_map_prealloc_split_pgtables(void)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + int ret, i;
> >>>>> + unsigned long lstart = _PAGE_OFFSET(vabits_actual);
> >>>>> + unsigned long lend = PAGE_END;
> >>>>> + unsigned long kstart = (unsigned long)lm_alias(_stext);
> >>>>> + unsigned long kend = (unsigned long)lm_alias(__init_begin);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + const struct mm_walk_ops collect_to_split_ops = {
> >>>>> + .pud_entry = collect_to_split_pud_entry,
> >>>>> + .pmd_entry = collect_to_split_pmd_entry
> >>>>> + };
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do we need to rewalk the page-table here instead of collating the
> >>>> number of block mappings we put down when creating the linear map in
> >>>> the first place?
> >>
> >> That's a good point; perhaps we can reuse the counters that this series introduces?
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260107002944.2940963-1-yang@os.amperecomputing.com/
> >>
> >>>
> >>> First, linear alias of the [_text, __init_begin) is not a target for
> >>> the split and it also seems strange to me to add code inside alloc_init_XXX()
> >>> that both checks an address range and counts to get the number of block mappings.
> >>>
> >>> Second, for a future feature,
> >>> I hope to add some code to split "specfic" area to be spilt e.x)
> >>> to set a specific pkey for specific area.
> >>
> >> Could you give more detail on this? My working assumption is that either the
> >> system supports BBML2 or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we need to split the whole
> >> linear map. If it does, we already have logic to split parts of the linear map
> >> when needed.
> >
> > This is not for a linear mapping case. but for a "kernel text area".
> > As a draft, I want to mark some of kernel code can executable
> > both kernel and eBPF program.
> > (I'm trying to make eBPF program non-executable kernel code directly
> > with POE feature).
> > For this "executable area" both of kernel and eBPF program
> > -- typical example is exception entry, It need to split that specific
> > range and mark them with special POE index.
>
> Ahh yes, I recall you mentioning this a while back (although I confess all the
> deatils have fallen out of my head). You'd need to make sure you're definitely
> not splitting an area of text that the secondary CPUs are executing while they
> are being held in the pen, since at least one of those CPUs doesn't support BBML2.
>

Absoultely. Anyway for that feature, I hope to sustain the current
way -- collect, pre-allocate and use them for specific ranges.

> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In this case, it's useful to rewalk the page-table with the specific
> >>> range to get the number of block mapping.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> + split_pgtables_idx = 0;
> >>>>> + split_pgtables_count = 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = walk_kernel_page_table_range_lockless(lstart, kstart,
> >>>>> + &collect_to_split_ops,
> >>>>> + NULL, NULL);
> >>>>> + if (!ret)
> >>>>> + ret = walk_kernel_page_table_range_lockless(kend, lend,
> >>>>> + &collect_to_split_ops,
> >>>>> + NULL, NULL);
> >>>>> + if (ret || !split_pgtables_count)
> >>>>> + goto error;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + split_pgtables = kvmalloc(split_pgtables_count * sizeof(struct ptdesc *),
> >>>>> + GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
> >>>>> + if (!split_pgtables)
> >>>>> + goto error;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < split_pgtables_count; i++) {
> >>>>> + /* The page table will be filled during splitting, so zeroing it is unnecessary. */
> >>>>> + split_pgtables[i] = pagetable_alloc(GFP_PGTABLE_KERNEL & ~__GFP_ZERO, 0);
> >>>>> + if (!split_pgtables[i])
> >>>>> + goto error;
> >>>>
> >>>> This looks potentially expensive on the boot path and only gets worse as
> >>>> the amount of memory grows. Maybe we should predicate this preallocation
> >>>> on preempt-rt?
> >>>
> >>> Agree. then I'll apply pre-allocation with PREEMPT_RT only.
> >>
> >> I guess I'm missing something obvious but I don't understand the problem here...
> >> We are only deferring the allocation of all these pgtables, so the cost is
> >> neutral surely? Had we correctly guessed that the system doesn't support BBML2
> >> earlier, we would have had to allocate all these pgtables earlier.
> >>
> >> Another way to look at it is that we are still allocating the same number of
> >> pgtables in the existing fallback path, it's just that we are doing it inside
> >> the stop_machine().
> >>
> >> My vote would be _not_ to have a separate path for PREEMPT_RT, which will end up
> >> with significantly less testing...
> >
> > IIUC, Will's mention is additional memory allocation for
> > "split_pgtables" where saved "pre-allocate" page tables.
> > As the memory increase, definitely this size would increase the cost.
>
> Err, so you're referring to the extra kvmalloc()? I don't think that's a big
> deal is it? you get 512 pointers per page. So the amortized cost is 1/512= 0.2%?
>
> I suspect we have both misunderstood Will's point...

Might be.. sorry for my misunderstanding.

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun