Re: [RFC 1/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory

David Hildenbrand
2021-01-27T09:34:09Z

On 27.01.21 05:06, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/21 2:43 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 25.01.21 07:22, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/22/20 12:42 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> pfn_valid() asserts that there is a memblock entry for a given pfn without
>>>> MEMBLOCK_NOMAP flag being set. The problem with ZONE_DEVICE based memory is
>>>> that they do not have memblock entries. Hence memblock_is_map_memory() will
>>>> invariably fail via memblock_search() for a ZONE_DEVICE based address. This
>>>> eventually fails pfn_valid() which is wrong. memblock_is_map_memory() needs
>>>> to be skipped for such memory ranges. As ZONE_DEVICE memory gets hotplugged
>>>> into the system via memremap_pages() called from a driver, their respective
>>>> memory sections will not have SECTION_IS_EARLY set.
>>>>
>>>> Normal hotplug memory will never have MEMBLOCK_NOMAP set in their memblock
>>>> regions. Because the flag MEMBLOCK_NOMAP was specifically designed and set
>>>> for firmware reserved memory regions. memblock_is_map_memory() can just be
>>>> skipped as its always going to be positive and that will be an optimization
>>>> for the normal hotplug memory. Like ZONE_DEVIE based memory, all hotplugged
>>>> normal memory too will not have SECTION_IS_EARLY set for their sections.
>>>>
>>>> Skipping memblock_is_map_memory() for all non early memory sections would
>>>> fix pfn_valid() problem for ZONE_DEVICE based memory and also improve its
>>>> performance for normal hotplug memory as well.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Fixes: 73b20c84d42d ("arm64: mm: implement pte_devmap support")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>>>
>>> Hello David/Mike,
>>>
>>> Given that we would need to rework early sections, memblock semantics via a
>>> new config i.e EARLY_SECTION_MEMMAP_HOLES and also some possible changes to
>>> ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK and HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID, wondering if these patches here
>>> which fixes a problem (and improves performance) can be merged first. After
>>> that, I could start working on the proposed rework. Could you please let me
>>> know your thoughts on this. Thank you.
>>
>> As I said, we might have to throw in an pfn_section_valid() check, to
>> catch not-section-aligned ZONE_DEVICE ranges (I assume this is possible
>> on arm64 as well, no?).
>
> pfn_section_valid() should be called only for !early_section() i.e normal
> hotplug and ZONE_DEVICE memory ? Because early boot memory should always
> be section aligned.

Well, at least not on x86-64 you can have early sections intersect with
ZONE_DEVICE memory.

E.g., have 64MB boot memory in a section. Later, we add ZONE_DEVICE
memory which might cover the remaining 64MB. For pfn_valid() on x86-64,
we always return "true" for such sections, because we always have the
memmap for the whole early section allocated during boot. So, there it's
"simple".

Now, arm64 seems to discard some parts of the vmemmap, so the remaining
64MB in such an early section might not have a memmap anymore? TBH, I
don't know.

Most probably only performing the check for
!early_section() is sufficient on arm64, but I really can't tell as I
don't know what we're actually discarding and if something as described
for x86-64 is even possible on arm64.

We should really try to take the magic out of arm64 vmemmap handling.

>
>>
>> Apart from that, I'm fine with a simple fix upfront, that can be more
>> easily backported if needed. (Q: do we? is this stable material?)
>>
>
> Right, an upfront fix here would help in backporting. AFAICS it should be
> backported to the stable as pte_devmap and ZONE_DEVICE have been around
> for some time now. Do you have a particular stable version which needs to
> be tagged in the patch ?

I haven't looked yet TBH. I guess it is broken since ZONE_DEVICE was
enabled on arm64?

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb