Received: by 2002:ac0:da4c:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a12csp409368imi; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 03:37:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1ty7Bv1amqnzFSiLrbFt/If5k40TlSU2KpklyBjhz+RFZ+mHR7/oKmXf1RG0ecZ+9YzN9/s X-Received: by 2002:a62:e919:0:b0:51e:7b6e:5a3b with SMTP id j25-20020a62e919000000b0051e7b6e5a3bmr43528012pfh.78.1658399831489; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 03:37:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1658399831; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=o8s9OyD+XqRmFrpw2BUILPJrl5MvNCtjnaBTneO5n2JE1HigD8KetZdDnTKzMYO+l+ uOzdZ8WqSSvLYvGfDlkQdpcvd034LsGC2e4IMGLuQ/5ZxnbnuzY6jIBK0iqqkB01D6G4 2Rjj1ulC68P10ksRIX1XPrl/SeCd5nQ2+GZWXOqJizOKOczokwedr8s1HUmlYasP/NwI 9EmrZTu2G5/iJaMa4x4wD1/e8eoTBLJRd6viQlyG6Ftpapp8Q1BpA31x55qEmL7K1j/N SlsPisnJYEpeq0mr18ARaTXQ+TJmPNHlH7knvRloR5Y/JXA5URie5TYdNCLsZok5sWFz 7Dfg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=VB5HFd5hZkJULTCmGSskvO9rydM26IHkGlEVgCF+Jhc=; b=v4oR0c7Chgh45vy9+HETz8BN3xAKW+2jGti2LAdhcjaAW+2BY65zHbb+aOR97EAref 2WLVEMUyf1zOfZOtk0HD0/tsWJLV6iPtWULtFRr3EqEMYrRkqr6+XKB1xWzgmyQq+19y fkhZL24xl8Yq5iYrqd5zeyjvvoXWX2AdjYR3Ik3A7hRiQA3PdQnHXHs60uEIBP9UafmB 2SCOw5+UPR1XXBV+QjEOQXpkezHYuOk5HIPiJNIOO72IyWXopWz0BmV0VmCA5NOhAUgz nzUUviroMk/RBhaK9wonnxnnRUS6Ry58ZHgGaWVuCJLiQRSjYXgIEaY3c9GfXWh2XY2C vtaA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=NC8h0OOa; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id nn18-20020a17090b38d200b001f07673dfd7si5956637pjb.4.2022.07.21.03.36.57; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 03:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=NC8h0OOa; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230282AbiGUJzo (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 05:55:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54366 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232582AbiGUJzj (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 05:55:39 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A558A2CC9B; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AD2161F82; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:55:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EF00C3411E; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:55:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1658397336; bh=OXWed5vpkzsz0jYpBxkXQrbeEPRaqZHtgrQjnkoQfp0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=NC8h0OOaZSdyUOlE3739Y6vphXUDOgoHE3XwrBc918ss0UlL9dXGVHA25hGA+YvJe XDyM1G5B4/gIgjuL9yHAfq50wfWyrsue7EAa4hzVgkc8J49XYm4oZsTRCnT/Iup/bb 6qswWRDqunoZYVGbDCv5P2i0fsHAStNaFkeDGzL54j8uFSnLgic3tnDtT9Vpgn7hkJ oYBzPUqjW3zMG1+9f+PZKQOVaD8m8uLO8Ni0YWpdWYY5mPbAr9nhVAAG1HiGqHeUK3 zheBGryvqfamq9a5biiKz1jcuE5YG4pdpY0sgA+a6dU49ZxY8WaZjt7JtIsO1uoUZD xtdX/Hb/ah02w== Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:55:28 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Huacai Chen Cc: David Hildenbrand , Dan Williams , Sudarshan Rajagopalan , Huacai Chen , Arnd Bergmann , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-arch , Xuefeng Li , Guo Ren , Xuerui Wang , Jiaxun Yang , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , "open list:MIPS" , LKML , linux-arm-kernel , Feiyang Chen Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] mm/sparse-vmemmap: Generalise vmemmap_populate_hugepages() Message-ID: <20220721095527.GB17088@willie-the-truck> References: <20220704112526.2492342-1-chenhuacai@loongson.cn> <20220704112526.2492342-4-chenhuacai@loongson.cn> <20220705092937.GA552@willie-the-truck> <20220706161736.GC3204@willie-the-truck> <4216f48f-fdf1-ec1e-b963-6f7fe6ba0f63@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:08:10AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 5:34 PM David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 14.07.22 14:34, Huacai Chen wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:47 PM Huacai Chen wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:17 AM Will Deacon wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 09:07:59PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 5:29 PM Will Deacon wrote: > > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 07:25:25PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > > >>>>>> +int __meminit vmemmap_populate_hugepages(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, > > >>>>>> + int node, struct vmem_altmap *altmap) > > >>>>>> +{ > > >>>>>> + unsigned long addr; > > >>>>>> + unsigned long next; > > >>>>>> + pgd_t *pgd; > > >>>>>> + p4d_t *p4d; > > >>>>>> + pud_t *pud; > > >>>>>> + pmd_t *pmd; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + for (addr = start; addr < end; addr = next) { > > >>>>>> + next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end); > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + pgd = vmemmap_pgd_populate(addr, node); > > >>>>>> + if (!pgd) > > >>>>>> + return -ENOMEM; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + p4d = vmemmap_p4d_populate(pgd, addr, node); > > >>>>>> + if (!p4d) > > >>>>>> + return -ENOMEM; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + pud = vmemmap_pud_populate(p4d, addr, node); > > >>>>>> + if (!pud) > > >>>>>> + return -ENOMEM; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr); > > >>>>>> + if (pmd_none(READ_ONCE(*pmd))) { > > >>>>>> + void *p; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + p = vmemmap_alloc_block_buf(PMD_SIZE, node, altmap); > > >>>>>> + if (p) { > > >>>>>> + vmemmap_set_pmd(pmd, p, node, addr, next); > > >>>>>> + continue; > > >>>>>> + } else if (altmap) > > >>>>>> + return -ENOMEM; /* no fallback */ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Why do you return -ENOMEM if 'altmap' here? That seems to be different to > > >>>>> what we currently have on arm64 and it's not clear to me why we're happy > > >>>>> with an altmap for the pmd case, but not for the pte case. > > >>>> The generic version is the same as X86. It seems that ARM64 always > > >>>> fallback whether there is an altmap, but X86 only fallback in the no > > >>>> altmap case. I don't know the reason of X86, can Dan Williams give > > >>>> some explaination? > > >>> > > >>> Right, I think we need to understand the new behaviour here before we adopt > > >>> it on arm64. > > >> Hi, Dan, > > >> Could you please tell us the reason? Thanks. > > >> > > >> And Sudarshan, > > >> You are the author of adding a fallback mechanism to ARM64, do you > > >> know why ARM64 is different from X86 (only fallback in no altmap > > >> case)? > > > > I think that's a purely theoretical issue: I assume that in any case we > > care about, the altmap should be reasonably sized and aligned such that > > this will always succeed. > > > > To me it even sounds like the best idea to *consistently* fail if there > > is no more space in the altmap, even if we'd have to fallback to PTE > > (again, highly unlikely that this is relevant in practice). Could > > indicate an altmap-size configuration issue. > > Does David's explanation make things clear? Moreover, I think Dan's > dedicated comments "no fallback" implies that his design is carefully > considered. So I think the generic version using the X86 logic is just > OK. I think the comment isn't worth the metaphorical paper that it's written on! If you can bulk it up a bit based on David's reasoning, then that would help. But yes, I'm happy with the code now, thanks both. Will