From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-x243.google.com (mail-pg0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3xWt1Z7206zDrDC for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:02:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg0-x243.google.com with SMTP id y129so1396524pgy.3 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 06:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:02:26 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Michael Ellerman , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Suraj Jitindar Singh , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] powerpc/powernv: Remove real mode access limit for early allocations Message-ID: <20170815230226.4fa6fc05@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1502801302.4493.50.camel@au1.ibm.com> References: <20170812113416.15978-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20170813013346.14002-3-npiggin@gmail.com> <87h8xaqpp8.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <1502716387.4493.27.camel@au1.ibm.com> <20170815221054.39ba5c9e@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <1502801302.4493.50.camel@au1.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:48:22 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 22:10 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:13:07 +1000 > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 22:49 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > > - /* > > > > > - * We limit the allocation that depend on ppc64_rma_size > > > > > - * to first_memblock_size. We also clamp it to 1GB to > > > > > - * avoid some funky things such as RTAS bugs. > > > > > > > > That comment about RTAS is 7 years old, and I'm pretty sure it was a > > > > historical note when it was written. > > > > > > > > I'm inclined to drop it and if we discover new bugs with RTAS on Power9 > > > > then we can always put it back. > > > > > > Arent' we using a 32-bit RTAS ? (Afaik there's a 64-bit one, we just > > > never used it ..). In this case we need to at least clamp to 2G (no > > > trust RTAS doing unsigned properly). > > > > Is there any allocation not covered by RTAS_INSTANTIATE_MAX? > > Not sure, we have to audit. Okay. > Talking about all this with mpe today, I > think we just need to make sure that anything that has a restriction > uses a specific identifier for *that* restriction rather than just > blindly "rma". For example, seg0_limit for segment 0 in HPT. In the > case of PACAs, we would create a specific limit that is > min(seg0_limit,rma) for pseries and -1 for powernv. etc.. > > The RMA limit can then become either strictly a pseries thing, or be > initialized to -1 on powernv (or max mem). Right, I'm trying to get there with the patch. Well really it breaks into two different things -- RMA for real mode (which is unlimited for powernv), and non faulting (of any kind, SLB or TLB on booke) for virtual mode. RTAS is still squished in there with RMA, but we do have that RTAS limit so we should try to move it out to there. Thanks, Nick