Received: by 10.223.176.46 with SMTP id f43csp526839wra; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:52:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2261yb9Tt3LFL/zDBhqGTudPfTbFk8sivA4loL3ih3fTv6O/zXw5wJhkJhx7g47RmporCGpn X-Received: by 10.101.78.207 with SMTP id w15mr10690828pgq.349.1516787521330; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:52:01 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1516787521; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=XFpGhHG7KKCUTXeuPrkMC3Ss2S+VYZujOn/8RF4L3nTpaD+XfKAIQjxiFHb3JwWVQO zVTVtW2Rf/mQRFTPZTvxdXJ0uGit/2Pgx5KnMtEW/0OVxLrGu8dyypHN5BibSWsmk5EO M0yYROH4fKEuMy15ut1bUYICkkHJ0+ODLIDuadfcHPrVsX8bHYbnAogPeVQAKZgzPhm2 qsgM+JXqz8l2T/N6O03ezQPMFWs6/uNErQ6h2z907UNDZIj0Hzda/wB87z5Ns05284fB VYA0GBEy5RSxl5OfHnAwtef2Pvz5NGMkw15mqN9agbFdYQQ/XZHHY5zx4vxlmKUMDeqW yGCw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=L2KkKvGhWuFonkUGkMAtBA4sFRzVLJREoJrQ0WyhIcM=; b=uG2R8UmrUFnpGg4ueqtTT8xmvR6AvGqhnBUqpS0D/h7cKuEPQha0D3W/js1qZnWtko QZitUIdGWVZb8aMNP8FYqWfBNWihUPpw3ITx1IG10MfO1rJZqAk9fmtEnh7/T/bun8pO MlnSA8oHqOet4k3Au74xdUTOaDH+fmD/Olc3y8iKjysi1wZQOTO5XoD26h6AqYl4SQ13 V2WHDtRCSkGN6lrAgax6wj+TY4wAp4G9vvqcrD8HoicSqkTA4grT4ZKwzixcj3ldi3Zr exr0n7R90AR4Q40xozkZ2k8SnVtL0J43Ng45Ow9HYBK5hvaCk+E9cQBQdRPGys3xDUyS OKIw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id l7si15648752pgs.316.2018.01.24.01.51.46; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:52:01 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932854AbeAXJvU (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:51:20 -0500 Received: from 9pmail.ess.barracuda.com ([64.235.154.210]:46964 "EHLO 9pmail.ess.barracuda.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932606AbeAXJvR (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 04:51:17 -0500 Received: from MIPSMAIL01.mipstec.com (mailrelay.mips.com [12.201.5.28]) by mx1402.ess.rzc.cudaops.com (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:49:45 +0000 Received: from [10.150.130.83] (10.150.130.83) by MIPSMAIL01.mipstec.com (10.20.43.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:49:36 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] MIPS: memblock: Surely map BSS kernel memory section To: Serge Semin CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20180117222312.14763-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com> <20180117222312.14763-3-fancer.lancer@gmail.com> <3fbb8850-bf34-d698-299a-f1cd62d063ae@mips.com> <20180122214746.GC32024@mobilestation> <8a26c7cd-966f-90d4-96c9-2f974808c2f4@mips.com> <20180123192707.GB28147@mobilestation> From: Matt Redfearn Message-ID: <884fd904-d439-fe9f-279c-44f4dbbfd096@mips.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:49:31 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180123192707.GB28147@mobilestation> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.150.130.83] X-BESS-ID: 1516787385-321458-15928-53854-6 X-BESS-VER: 2017.17-r1801171719 X-BESS-Apparent-Source-IP: 12.201.5.28 X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.189306 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------- 0.00 BSF_BESS_OUTBOUND META: BESS Outbound X-BESS-Outbound-Spam-Status: SCORE=0.00 using account:ESS59374 scores of KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=BSF_BESS_OUTBOUND X-BESS-BRTS-Status: 1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Serge, On 23/01/18 19:27, Serge Semin wrote: > Hello Matt, > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:03:27AM +0000, Matt Redfearn wrote: >> Hi Serge, >> >> On 22/01/18 21:47, Serge Semin wrote: >>> Hello Matt, >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:35:26PM +0000, Matt Redfearn wrote: >>>> Hi Serge, >>>> >>>> On 17/01/18 22:23, Serge Semin wrote: >>>>> The current MIPS code makes sure the kernel code/data/init >>>>> sections are in the maps, but BSS should also be there. >>>> >>>> Quite right - it should. But this was protected against by reserving all >>>> bootmem up to the _end symbol here: >>>> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc8/source/arch/mips/kernel/setup.c#L388 >>>> Which you remove in the next patch in this series. I'm not sure it is worth >>> >>> Right. Missed that part. The old code just doesn't set the kernel memory free >>> calling the free_bootmem() method for non-reserved parts below reserved_end. >>> >>>> disentangling the reserved_end stuff from the next patch to make this into a >>>> single logical change of reserving just .bss rather than everything below >>>> _end. >>> >>> Good point. I'll move this change into the "[PATCH 05/14] MIPS: memblock: >>> Add reserved memory regions to memblock". It logically belongs to that place. >>> Since basically by the arch_mem_addpart() calls we reserve all the kernel >> >> >> Actually I was wrong - it's not this sequence of arch_mem_addpart's that >> reserves the kernels memory. At least on DT based systems, it's pretty >> likely that these regions will overlap with the system memory already added. >> of_scan_flat_dt will look for the memory node and add it via >> early_init_dt_add_memory_arch. >> These calls to add the kernel text, init and bss detect that they overlap >> with the already present system memory, so don't get added, here: >> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc9/source/arch/mips/kernel/setup.c#L759 >> >> As such, when we print out the content of boot_mem_map, we only have a >> single entry: >> >> [ 0.000000] Determined physical RAM map: >> [ 0.000000] memory: 10000000 @ 00000000 (usable) >> >> >>> memory now I'd also merged them into a single call for the range [_text, _end]. >>> What do you think? >> >> >> I think that this patch makes sense in case the .bss is for some reason not >> covered by an existing entry, but I would leave it as a separate patch. >> >> Your [PATCH 05/14] MIPS: memblock: Add reserved memory regions to memblock >> is actually self-contained since it replaces reserving all memory up to _end >> with the single reservation of the kernel's whole size >> >> + size = __pa_symbol(&_end) - __pa_symbol(&_text); >> + memblock_reserve(__pa_symbol(&_text), size); >> >> >> Which I think is definitely an improvement since it is much clearer. >> > > Alright lets sum it up. First of all, yeah, you are right, arch_mem_addpart() > is created to make sure the kernel memory is added to the memblock/bootmem pool. > The previous arch code was leaving such the memory range non-freed since it was > higher the reserved_end, so to make sure the early memory allocations wouldn't > be made from the pages, where kernel actually resides. > > In my code I still wanted to make sure the kernel memory is in the memblock pool. > But I also noticed, that .bss memory range wouldn't be added to the pool if neither > dts nor platform-specific code added any memory to the boot_mem_map pool. So I > decided to fix it. The actual kernel memory reservation is performed after all > the memory regions are declared by the code you cited. It's essential to do > the [_text, _end] memory range reservation there, otherwise memblock may > allocate from the memory range occupied by the kernel code/data. > > Since you agree with leaving it in the separate patch, I'd only suggest to > call the arch_mem_addpart() method for just one range [_text, _end] instead of > doing it three times for a separate _text, _data and bss sections. What do you > think? I think it's best left as 3 separate reservations, mainly due to the different attribute used for the init section. So all in all, I like this patch as it is. Thanks, Matt > > Regards, > -Sergey > >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> -Sergey >>> >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Matt Redfearn >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Matt >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/mips/kernel/setup.c | 3 +++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/setup.c b/arch/mips/kernel/setup.c >>>>> index 76e9e2075..0d21c9e04 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/setup.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/setup.c >>>>> @@ -845,6 +845,9 @@ static void __init arch_mem_init(char **cmdline_p) >>>>> arch_mem_addpart(PFN_UP(__pa_symbol(&__init_begin)) << PAGE_SHIFT, >>>>> PFN_DOWN(__pa_symbol(&__init_end)) << PAGE_SHIFT, >>>>> BOOT_MEM_INIT_RAM); >>>>> + arch_mem_addpart(PFN_DOWN(__pa_symbol(&__bss_start)) << PAGE_SHIFT, >>>>> + PFN_UP(__pa_symbol(&__bss_stop)) << PAGE_SHIFT, >>>>> + BOOT_MEM_RAM); >>>>> pr_info("Determined physical RAM map:\n"); >>>>> print_memory_map(); >>>>>