| Message ID | 1456174472-30028-6-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) > > pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); > if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && > - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { > + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { > /* > * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap > * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on Do I miss any patches? The for-next/core branch has a pgd_none(*pgd) check here, so this patch does not apply. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On 23 February 2016 at 18:12, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) >> >> pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); >> if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && >> - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { >> + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { >> /* >> * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap >> * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on > > Do I miss any patches? The for-next/core branch has a pgd_none(*pgd) > check here, so this patch does not apply. > This is actually based on the kaslr branch, not for-next/core I'm happy to rebase and resend. I have added some patches for kasan, kvm and smp as well. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:16:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 23 February 2016 at 18:12, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > >> @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) > >> > >> pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); > >> if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && > >> - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { > >> + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { > >> /* > >> * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap > >> * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on > > > > Do I miss any patches? The for-next/core branch has a pgd_none(*pgd) > > check here, so this patch does not apply. > > > > This is actually based on the kaslr branch, not for-next/core > > I'm happy to rebase and resend. That's fine, no need to resend. I plan to move those as well onto for-next/core but wanted some more testing first on the initial part. > I have added some patches for kasan, kvm and smp as well. Patches related to the __pa clean-up? Or something else? -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On 23 February 2016 at 18:26, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:16:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 23 February 2016 at 18:12, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> >> @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) >> >> >> >> pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); >> >> if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && >> >> - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { >> >> + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { >> >> /* >> >> * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap >> >> * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on >> > >> > Do I miss any patches? The for-next/core branch has a pgd_none(*pgd) >> > check here, so this patch does not apply. >> > >> >> This is actually based on the kaslr branch, not for-next/core >> >> I'm happy to rebase and resend. > > That's fine, no need to resend. I plan to move those as well onto > for-next/core but wanted some more testing first on the initial part. > >> I have added some patches for kasan, kvm and smp as well. > > Patches related to the __pa clean-up? Or something else? > No, related to the __pa restriction _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:27:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 23 February 2016 at 18:26, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:16:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 23 February 2016 at 18:12, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > >> >> @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) > >> >> > >> >> pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); > >> >> if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && > >> >> - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { > >> >> + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { > >> >> /* > >> >> * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap > >> >> * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on > >> > > >> > Do I miss any patches? The for-next/core branch has a pgd_none(*pgd) > >> > check here, so this patch does not apply. > >> > > >> > >> This is actually based on the kaslr branch, not for-next/core > >> > >> I'm happy to rebase and resend. > > > > That's fine, no need to resend. I plan to move those as well onto > > for-next/core but wanted some more testing first on the initial part. > > > >> I have added some patches for kasan, kvm and smp as well. > > > > Patches related to the __pa clean-up? Or something else? > > No, related to the __pa restriction OK. I'll wait for a while before merging this series to get more reviews and testing. I picked the first patch though (high_memory fix). -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On 23 February 2016 at 18:32, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:27:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 23 February 2016 at 18:26, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:16:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> On 23 February 2016 at 18:12, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> >> >> @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) >> >> >> >> >> >> pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); >> >> >> if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && >> >> >> - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { >> >> >> + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { >> >> >> /* >> >> >> * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap >> >> >> * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on >> >> > >> >> > Do I miss any patches? The for-next/core branch has a pgd_none(*pgd) >> >> > check here, so this patch does not apply. >> >> > >> >> >> >> This is actually based on the kaslr branch, not for-next/core >> >> >> >> I'm happy to rebase and resend. >> > >> > That's fine, no need to resend. I plan to move those as well onto >> > for-next/core but wanted some more testing first on the initial part. >> > >> >> I have added some patches for kasan, kvm and smp as well. >> > >> > Patches related to the __pa clean-up? Or something else? >> >> No, related to the __pa restriction > > OK. I'll wait for a while before merging this series to get more reviews > and testing. I picked the first patch though (high_memory fix). > OK, I'll hold off for now. I have enough stuff in flight as it is. However, I suppose that you will want to address the performance concern at some point If anyone wants to do any benchmarking: git://git.linaro.org/people/ard.biesheuvel/linux-arm.git arm64-pa-linear-mapping (updated for kasan, KVM, smp etc) _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:43:37PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 23 February 2016 at 18:32, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:27:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 23 February 2016 at 18:26, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:16:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> On 23 February 2016 at 18:12, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > >> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > >> >> >> @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); > >> >> >> if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && > >> >> >> - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { > >> >> >> + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { > >> >> >> /* > >> >> >> * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap > >> >> >> * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on > >> >> > > >> >> > Do I miss any patches? The for-next/core branch has a pgd_none(*pgd) > >> >> > check here, so this patch does not apply. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> This is actually based on the kaslr branch, not for-next/core > >> >> > >> >> I'm happy to rebase and resend. > >> > > >> > That's fine, no need to resend. I plan to move those as well onto > >> > for-next/core but wanted some more testing first on the initial part. > >> > > >> >> I have added some patches for kasan, kvm and smp as well. > >> > > >> > Patches related to the __pa clean-up? Or something else? > >> > >> No, related to the __pa restriction > > > > OK. I'll wait for a while before merging this series to get more reviews > > and testing. I picked the first patch though (high_memory fix). > > OK, I'll hold off for now. I have enough stuff in flight as it is. > However, I suppose that you will want to address the performance > concern at some point Yes, though we first need to identify how real this concern is. PHYS_OFFSET was a low-hanging fruit, so worth merging without additional benchmarking. The __pa clean-up, while nice, is relatively intrusive and would need acks from the KVM guys as well. I wouldn't rush into merging it unless it shows some benefits in benchmarks. One concern I have is that we still find something in the generic code doing a virt_to_phys() on kernel image addresses which would render all this clean-up unnecessary (since most of the changes are not on the critical path, we do them just to simplify virt_to_phys()). > If anyone wants to do any benchmarking: > git://git.linaro.org/people/ard.biesheuvel/linux-arm.git arm64-pa-linear-mapping Thanks. We'll give this a try in the next few days. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h index ff98585d085a..bc01d2b65225 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h @@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ static inline void pud_populate(struct mm_struct *mm, pud_t *pud, pmd_t *pmd) #else static inline void __pud_populate(pud_t *pud, phys_addr_t pmd, pudval_t prot) { - BUILD_BUG(); } #endif /* CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2 */ @@ -83,7 +82,6 @@ static inline void pgd_populate(struct mm_struct *mm, pgd_t *pgd, pud_t *pud) #else static inline void __pgd_populate(pgd_t *pgdp, phys_addr_t pud, pgdval_t prot) { - BUILD_BUG(); } #endif /* CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 */ diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c index fbba941a6e87..e7340defa085 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 && - !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa(bm_pud))) { + !(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_page_paddr(*pgd) == __pa_symbol(bm_pud))) { /* * We only end up here if the kernel mapping and the fixmap * share the top level pgd entry, which should only happen on @@ -688,12 +688,12 @@ void __init early_fixmap_init(void) BUG_ON(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_16K_PAGES)); pud = pud_offset_kimg(pgd, addr); } else { - pgd_populate(&init_mm, pgd, bm_pud); + __pgd_populate(pgd, __pa_symbol(bm_pud), PUD_TYPE_TABLE); pud = fixmap_pud(addr); } - pud_populate(&init_mm, pud, bm_pmd); + __pud_populate(pud, __pa_symbol(bm_pmd), PUD_TYPE_TABLE); pmd = fixmap_pmd(addr); - pmd_populate_kernel(&init_mm, pmd, bm_pte); + __pmd_populate(pmd, __pa_symbol(bm_pte), PMD_TYPE_TABLE); /* * The boot-ioremap range spans multiple pmds, for which
Avoid using __pa() translations while populating the fixmap page tables, by using __pa_symbol to take the physical addresses of bm_pud, bm_pmd and bm_pte, and move to __pgd_populate/__pmd_populate/__pte_populate, which takes physical addresses directly. Since the former two are now called unconditionally, remove the BUILD_BUG()'s that prevent their use in case their page table level is folded away. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h | 2 -- arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) -- 2.5.0 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel