From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3wtSWx1dm8zDrH4 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:59:41 +1000 (AEST) From: Michael Ellerman To: victora , alistair@popple.id.au, jk@ozlabs.org Cc: victora@br.ibm.com, mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: 1M hugepage size being registered on Linux In-Reply-To: <322aa4a1a11ca79008a8c894c12a80d5@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <322aa4a1a11ca79008a8c894c12a80d5@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:59:40 +1000 Message-ID: <87o9tgsmdv.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Victor, Someone refreshed my memory on this, coffee was involved ... victora writes: > Hi Alistair/Jeremy, > > I am working on a bug related to 1M hugepage size being registered on > Linux (Power 8 Baremetal - Garrison). On those machines the property in the device tree comes straight from hostboot, and it includes 1M: # lsprop ibm,segment-page-sizes ibm,segment-page-sizes 0000000c 00000000 00000003 0000000c baseshift slbenc lpnum shift 00000000 00000010 00000007 00000018 penc shift penc shift 00000038 00000010 00000110 00000002 penc baseshift slbenc lpnum 00000010 00000001 00000018 00000008 shift penc shift penc 00000014 00000130 00000001 00000014 <--- 1MB = 2^0x14 baseshift slbenc lpnum shift 00000002 00000018 00000100 00000001 penc baseshift slbenc lpnum 00000018 00000000 00000022 00000120 shift penc baseshift slbenc 00000001 00000022 00000003 lpnum shift penc > I was checking dmesg and it seems that 1M page size is coming from > firmware to Linux. > > [ 0.000000] base_shift=20: shift=20, sllp=0x0130, avpnm=0x00000000, tlbiel=0, penc=2 > [ 1.528867] HugeTLB registered 1 MB page size, pre-allocated 0 pages Which is why you see that message. > Should Linux support this page size? As afar as I know, this was an > unsupported page size in the past isn't it? If this should be supported > now, is there any specific reason for that? It's unsupported in Linux because it doesn't match the page table geometry. We merged a patch from Aneesh to filter it out in 4.12-rc1: a525108cf1cc ("powerpc/mm/hugetlb: Filter out hugepage size not supported by page table layout") I guess we should probably send that patch to stable et. al. cheers