linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: How to handle PTE tables with non contiguous entries ?
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 17:17:16 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pnxbgh8b.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d1be61a4-8dc7-cfe0-e4e7-82ce5f57ced3@c-s.fr>

Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:

> Le 17/09/2018 =C3=A0 11:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm having a hard time figuring out the best way to handle the following
>>> situation:
>>>
>>> On the powerpc8xx, handling 16k size pages requires to have page tables
>>> with 4 identical entries.
>>=20
>> I assume that hugetlb page size? If so isn't that similar to FSL hugetlb
>> page table layout?
>
> No, it is not for 16k hugepage size with a standard page size of 4k.
>
> Here I'm trying to handle the case of CONFIG_PPC_16K_PAGES.
> As of today, it is implemented by using the standard Linux page layout,=20
> ie one PTE entry for each 16k page. This forbids the use the 8xx HW=20
> assistance.
>
>>=20
>>>
>>> Initially I was thinking about handling this by simply modifying
>>> pte_index() which changing pte_t type in order to have one entry every
>>> 16 bytes, then replicate the PTE value at *ptep, *ptep+1,*ptep+2 and
>>> *ptep+3 both in set_pte_at() and pte_update().
>>>
>>> However, this doesn't work because many many places in the mm core part
>>> of the kernel use loops on ptep with single ptep++ increment.
>>>
>>> Therefore did it with the following hack:
>>>
>>>    /* PTE level */
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_8xx) && defined(CONFIG_PPC_16K_PAGES)
>>> +typedef struct { pte_basic_t pte, pte1, pte2, pte3; } pte_t;
>>> +#else
>>>    typedef struct { pte_basic_t pte; } pte_t;
>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> @@ -181,7 +192,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_update(pte_t *p,
>>>           : "cc" );
>>>    #else /* PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES */
>>>           unsigned long old =3D pte_val(*p);
>>> -       *p =3D __pte((old & ~clr) | set);
>>> +       unsigned long new =3D (old & ~clr) | set;
>>> +
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_8xx) && defined(CONFIG_PPC_16K_PAGES)
>>> +       p->pte =3D p->pte1 =3D p->pte2 =3D p->pte3 =3D new;
>>> +#else
>>> +       *p =3D __pte(new);
>>> +#endif
>>>    #endif /* !PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES */
>>>
>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_44x
>>>
>>>
>>> @@ -161,7 +161,11 @@ static inline void __set_pte_at(struct mm_struct
>>> *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>>           /* Anything else just stores the PTE normally. That covers all
>>> 64-bit
>>>            * cases, and 32-bit non-hash with 32-bit PTEs.
>>>            */
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_8xx) && defined(CONFIG_PPC_16K_PAGES)
>>> +       ptep->pte =3D ptep->pte1 =3D ptep->pte2 =3D ptep->pte3 =3D pte_=
val(pte);
>>> +#else
>>>           *ptep =3D pte;
>>> +#endif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I'm not too happy with it as it means pte_t is not a single type
>>> anymore so passing it from one function to the other is quite heavy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would someone have an idea of an elegent way to handle that ?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Christophe
>>=20
>> Why would pte_update bother about updating all the 4 entries?. Can you
>> help me understand the issue?
>
> Because the 8xx HW assistance expects 4 identical entries for each 16k=20
> page, so everytime a PTE is updated the 4 entries have to be updated.
>

What you suggested in the original mail is what matches that best isn't it?
That is a linux pte update involves updating 4 slot. Hence a linux pte
consist of 4 unsigned long?

-aneesh

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-18 11:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-10 14:34 How to handle PTE tables with non contiguous entries ? Christophe Leroy
2018-09-10 20:05 ` Dan Malek
2018-09-11  5:28   ` Christophe LEROY
2018-09-10 21:06 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-09-11  5:39   ` Christophe LEROY
2018-09-17  9:03 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2018-09-17  9:47   ` Christophe LEROY
2018-09-18 11:47     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2018-09-18 11:53       ` Christophe LEROY

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=87pnxbgh8b.fsf@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    /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).