Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling

Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-06-17T09:35:26Z

On 06/17/2010 07:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
>
>>> I think they might be. Kenji?
>>>
>> No. My addresses are in the 44-bits range (around fc000000000). So it is
>> not required for my problem. This change assumes that phys_addr can be
>> above 44-bits (up to 52-bits (and higher in the future?)).
>>
>> By the way, is there linux kernel limit regarding above 44-bits physical
>> address in x86_32 PAE? For example, pfn above 32-bits is not supported?
>>
>>

That's an awkward situation. I would tend to suggest that you not
support this type of machine with a 32-bit kernel. Is it a sparse
memory system, or is there a device mapped in that range?

I guess it would be possible to special-case ioremap to allow the
creation of such mappings, but I don't know what kind of system-wide
fallout would happen as a result. The consequences of something trying
to extract a pfn from one of those ptes would be

> There are probably places at which PFNs are held in 32-bit numbers,
> although it would be good to track them down if it isn't too expensive
> to fix them (i.e. doesn't affect generic code.)
>

There are many places which hold pfns in 32 bit variables on 32 bit
systems; the standard type for pfns is "unsigned long", pretty much
everywhere in the kernel. It might be worth defining a pfn_t and
converting usage over to that, but it would be a pervasive change.

> This also affects paravirt systems, i.e. right now Xen has to locate all
> 32-bit guests below 64 GB, which limits its usefulness.
>

I don't think the limit is 64GB. A 32-bit PFN limits us to 2^44, which
is 16TB. (32-bit PV Xen guests have another unrelated limit of around
160GB physical memory because that as much m2p table will fit into the
Xen hole in the kernel mapping.)

>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE
>> /* 44=32+12, the limit we can fit into an unsigned long pfn */
>> #define __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT 44
>> #define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT 32
>>
>> If there is 44-bits physical address limit, I think it's better to use
>> PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK for masking physical address, instead of "(phys_addr
>>
>>>> PAGE_SHIFT) << PAGE_SHIFT)". The PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK would become
>>>>
>> greater value when 44-bits physical address limit is eliminated. And
>> maybe we need to change phys_addr_valid() returns error if physical
>> address is above (1 << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT)?
>>
> The real question is how much we can fix without an unreasonable cost.
>

I think it would be a pretty large change. From the Xen's perspective,
any machine even approximately approaching the 2^44 limit will be
capable of running Xen guests in hvm mode, so PV isn't really a concern.

J