Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] riscv: Move kernel mapping to vmalloc zone
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a34sT2bQbkZUjaxaShzCkn+s35pXxS0UNhqGFu+t2hZYw@mail.gmail.com>
CC:     alex@ghiti.fr, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
        Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>, paulus@samba.org,
        zong.li@sifive.com, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <mhng-820ebe55-b4a3-4ab3-b848-6d3551b43091@palmerdabbelt-glaptop1>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 02:43:50 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:06 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:36:10 PDT (-0700), alex@ghiti.fr wrote:
>> > Let's try to make progress here: I add linux-mm in CC to get feedback on
>> > this patch as it blocks sv48 support too.
>>
>> Sorry for being slow here.  I haven't replied because I hadn't really fleshed
>> out the design yet, but just so everyone's on the same page my problems with
>> this are:
>>
>> * We waste vmalloc space on 32-bit systems, where there isn't a lot of it.
>
> There is actually an ongoing work to make 32-bit Arm kernels move
> vmlinux into the vmalloc space, as part of the move to avoid highmem.
>
> Overall, a 32-bit system would waste about 0.1% of its virtual address space
> by having the kernel be located in both the linear map and the vmalloc area.
> It's not zero, but not that bad either. With the typical split of 3072 MB user,
> 768MB linear and 256MB vmalloc, it's also around 1.5% of the available
> vmalloc area (assuming a 4MB vmlinux in a typical 32-bit kernel), but the
> boundaries can be changed arbitrarily if needed.

OK, I guess maybe it's not so bad.  Our 32-bit defconfig is 10MiB, but I
wouldn't really put much weight behind that number as it's just a 64-bit
defconfig built for 32-bit.  We don't have any 32-bit hardware anyway, so if
this becomes an issue later I guess we can just deal with it then.

> The eventual goal is to have a split of 3840MB for either user or linear map
> plus and 256MB for vmalloc, including the kernel. Switching between linear
> and user has a noticeable runtime overhead, but it relaxes both the limits
> for user memory and lowmem, and it provides a somewhat stronger
> address space isolation.

Ya, I think we decided not to do that, at least for now.  I guess the right
answer there will depend on what 32-bit systems look like, and since we don't
have any I'm inclined to just stick to the fast option.

> Another potential idea would be to completely randomize the physical
> addresses underneath the kernel by using a random permutation of the
> pages in the kernel image. This adds even more overhead (virt_to_phys
> may need to call vmalloc_to_page or similar) and may cause problems
> with DMA into kernel .data across page boundaries,
>
>> * Sort out how to maintain a linear map as the canonical hole moves around
>>   between the VA widths without adding a bunch of overhead to the virt2phys and
>>   friends.  This is probably going to be the trickiest part, but I think if we
>>   just change the page table code to essentially lie about VAs when an sv39
>>   system runs an sv48+sv39 kernel we could make it work -- there'd be some
>>   logical complexity involved, but it would remain fast.
>
> I assume you can't use the trick that x86 has where all kernel addresses
> are at the top of the 64-bit address space and user addresses are at the
> bottom, regardless of the size of the page tables?

They have the load in their mapping functions, as far as I can tell that's
required to do this sort of thing.  We do as well to handle some of the
implicit boot stuff for now, but I was assuming that we'd want to get rid of
that for performance reasons.  That said, maybe it just doesn't matter?