Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64/mm: Fix pfn_valid() for ZONE_DEVICE based memory

Will Deacon
2021-02-02T12:33:07Z

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:41:53AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> pfn_valid() validates a pfn but basically it checks for a valid struct page
> backing for that pfn. It should always return positive for memory ranges
> backed with struct page mapping. But currently pfn_valid() fails for all
> ZONE_DEVICE based memory types even though they have struct page mapping.
>
> 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_DEVICE based memory, all normal
> hotplugged 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.

Hmm. Although I follow your logic, this does seem to rely on an awful lot of
assumptions to continue to hold true as the kernel evolves. In particular,
how do we ensure that early sections are always fully backed with
'struct page's and never contain any nomap entries? What's to stop somebody
changing that and quietly breaking our pfn_valid() implementation?

And to be clear, I'm not trying to say that this patch is broken. I'm just
trying to work out how on Earth we can maintain it!

Will