Re: [PATCH v7] RISC-V: enable XIP

Alex Ghiti
2021-04-09T12:58:02Z

Le 4/9/21 à 8:07 AM, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
> On 09.04.21 13:39, Alex Ghiti wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Le 4/9/21 à 4:23 AM, David Hildenbrand a écrit :
>>> On 09.04.21 09:14, Alex Ghiti wrote:
>>>> Le 4/9/21 à 2:51 AM, Alexandre Ghiti a écrit :
>>>>> From: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Introduce XIP (eXecute In Place) support for RISC-V platforms.
>>>>> It allows code to be executed directly from non-volatile storage
>>>>> directly addressable by the CPU, such as QSPI NOR flash which can
>>>>> be found on many RISC-V platforms. This makes way for significant
>>>>> optimization of RAM footprint. The XIP kernel is not compressed
>>>>> since it has to run directly from flash, so it will occupy more
>>>>> space on the non-volatile storage. The physical flash address used
>>>>> to link the kernel object files and for storing it has to be known
>>>>> at compile time and is represented by a Kconfig option.
>>>>>
>>>>> XIP on RISC-V will for the time being only work on MMU-enabled
>>>>> kernels.
>>>>>
>>>> I added linux-mm and linux-arch to get feedbacks because I noticed that
>>>> DEBUG_VM_PGTABLE fails for SPARSEMEM (it works for FLATMEM but I think
>>>> it does not do what is expected): the fact that we don't have any
>>>> struct
>>>> page to back the text and rodata in flash is the problem but to which
>>>> extent ?
>>>
>>> Just wondering, why can't we create a memmap for that memory -- or is it
>>> even desireable to not do that explicity? There might be some nasty side
>>> effects when not having a memmap for text and rodata.
>>
>>
>> Do you have examples of such effects ? Any feature that will not work
>> without that ?
>>
>
> At least if it's not part of /proc/iomem in any way (maybe "System RAM"
> is not what we want without a memmap, TBD), kexec-tools won't be able to
> handle it properly e.g., for kdump. But not sure if that is really
> relevant in your setup.
>
> Regarding other features, anything that does a pfn_valid(),
> pfn_to_page() or pfn_to_online_page() would behave differently now --
> assuming the kernel doesn't fall into a section with other System RAM
> (whereby we would still allocate the memmap for the whole section).
>
> I guess you might stumble over some surprises in some code paths, but
> nothing really comes to mind. Not sure if your zeropage is part of the
> kernel image on RISC-V (I remember that we sometimes need a memmap
> there, but I might be wrong)?

It is in the kernel image and is located in bss which will be in RAM and
then be backed by a memmap.

>
> I assume you still somehow create the direct mapping for the kernel,
> right? So it's really some memory region with a direct mapping but
> without a memmap (and right now, without a resource), correct?
>

No I don't create any direct mapping for the text and the rodata.

> [...]
>
>>>
>>> Also, will that memory properly be exposed in the resource tree as
>>> System RAM (e.g., /proc/iomem) ? Otherwise some things (/proc/kcore)
>>> won't work as expected - the kernel won't be included in a dump.
>>
>>
>> I have just checked and it does not appear in /proc/iomem.
>>
>> Ok your conclusion would be to have struct page, I'm going to implement
>> this version then using memblock as you described.
>
> Let's first evaluate what the harm could be. You could (and should?)
> create the kernel resource manually - IIRC, that's independent of the
> memmap/memblock thing.
>
> @Mike, what's your take on not having a memmap for kernel text and ro data?
>