Received: by 2002:ac0:da4c:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a12csp553459imi; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 06:33:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vAJKKtTT/uSSB9yB7d+fv5OBq9Mqn1t0SZBqW1qSMRe7/1RWqh6x5ev74pFbwnA9Srrwb8 X-Received: by 2002:a02:cea6:0:b0:33f:774f:5267 with SMTP id z6-20020a02cea6000000b0033f774f5267mr22221286jaq.274.1658410407268; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 06:33:27 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1658410407; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=GQuwDkk7/zMShNmD71EyQgdPp3C6HwDz++3eOEd7MOz/GRBE9O9dW2wxQny5eN5gmo HwF9GxKeYbFudQoL5d4oh/y8e0/DBWr2VaAGMqF1Q469K5sy0z0/g6FIWNvOuZBOj715 WWqrHK/fz8kzpvqMRvrL5nNrKTlZ6IXrFbTKX7U5IGY8uyOzmz3zlgbi6+IHYO5jvgOe 1/Bscafo7Q2dmSZYdfMCL/31g4yCVZnUsmHJROkBHo2iwbWa4EmxMEy3QAHS6k2pL5IV OTzBvbnDAE02t3LyDPXihtONZpNMspuXm+csDy8CTpVrPgDD9bXjMD+xyquvXXoD/JZ0 RDAg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=4aSMaIwD181BWHv7uBsMNQ4iSjqsk1oYcNhWTNl5B0E=; b=osnEUeYnaDJwlVQgTUb8Ny8oQ0Mh5/JljpsHN9ZWco62DpjqBwm3wiF38rHIODiOZX 0HIiJY7Nfc0nL5jln56AHlDuACux6fTanQI7FoyHD5BNndPfmZOmgnhJSQoMHUy/m/+v ZEhI4Wi093GYGC+t2Jr4Zaw4I5Q8/CONys9rO1wxFXcKll3sqPJ4/I6LOwidIYkAjH3U t+nvQ2H05duKyl0aDgZWBlMdMwOgqvVCEoiApz+OvlODBchsuWZ1qfyEtlzZDcgg2YYH lXg4t8mKq115tWYLh0zrngXok2tgswr5PipH7G7uin2pWF/KoBvySX/Nf426HZAkiMVL 9XTQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=r+wK1SAI; 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 n27-20020a02715b000000b0032de0c106a0si1339495jaf.21.2022.07.21.06.33.11; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 06:33:27 -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=r+wK1SAI; 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 S233674AbiGUNBm (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:01:42 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34340 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233801AbiGUNBg (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:01:36 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0758D6E2EE; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 06:01:32 -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 ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13B97B824D7; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6E19C341D9; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:01:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1658408489; bh=9cehMBtYqegEglWHZ/ZjLkiUCkU1NtN8dr7KiZHOiIw=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=r+wK1SAIxaqRJt4LWaDVQXOn4eGCZ2k3lzmMNPWwkQyYuEkVG4+UHvDVsifixH0tZ B3vApo3Ym4XWemOEsITHQb1GQZXN2GDvdEuf18yTM1cEHQ/PmFwLogDa8+EjdVlDuk XpHllkqF+gbXg4IOtwMhBS0OGH0Z7iQFBPLDlNuvbJWcExa9jJmUP6aKS5p72ZXq4u M53QFJ3Jf2MTjlw0f2DJcjCFj4Qxw8+M7Bi11hL8O7inyiBEtZ4tAZOYhe9/puxo8l DgzVe/SSVpitANM7WZMAPekZIFh6HNxJILSMNdU2oRvv6JsFHtK5ZLASdP6WoYlHCb XAf0OW+DUPJsA== Received: by mail-vs1-f51.google.com with SMTP id a66so1471043vsc.1; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 06:01:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/y4UB2nPzgdvNOtLOSJqkhMvv/oKCFas0zgpqFDWZoE+aVMHuW j4VTakRzlmDODM7hkRROypqvdqhIan7wOwbIx2M= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3543:b0:357:3ae7:bbd0 with SMTP id e3-20020a056102354300b003573ae7bbd0mr16036189vss.84.1658408488034; Thu, 21 Jul 2022 06:01:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <20220721095527.GB17088@willie-the-truck> In-Reply-To: <20220721095527.GB17088@willie-the-truck> From: Huacai Chen Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 21:01:15 +0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] mm/sparse-vmemmap: Generalise vmemmap_populate_hugepages() To: Will Deacon 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Hi, Will, On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:55 PM Will Deacon wrote: > > 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. OK, I will add a detailed comment here. Huacai > > Will