Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760950Ab0FRAXW (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:23:22 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:53254 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760939Ab0FRAXU (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:23:20 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Message-ID: <4C1ABC42.9020106@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:22:26 +0900 From: Kenji Kaneshige User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , Matthew Wilcox , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, macro@linux-mips.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, eike-kernel@sf-tec.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: ioremap: fix wrong physical address handling References: <4C197A49.6020400@jp.fujitsu.com> <4C197A9E.5040509@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100617025052.GH9298@parisc-linux.org> <4C19A2EE.2010203@zytor.com> <4C19AABA.8000706@jp.fujitsu.com> <4C19BA9A.4010300@zytor.com> <4C19EC57.3000409@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <4C19EC57.3000409@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3245 Lines: 85 (2010/06/17 18:35), Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 06/17/2010 07:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: >> >>>> I think they might be. Kenji? >>>> >>> No. My addresses are in the 44-bits range (around fc000000000). So it is >>> not required for my problem. This change assumes that phys_addr can be >>> above 44-bits (up to 52-bits (and higher in the future?)). >>> >>> By the way, is there linux kernel limit regarding above 44-bits physical >>> address in x86_32 PAE? For example, pfn above 32-bits is not supported? >>> >>> > > That's an awkward situation. I would tend to suggest that you not > support this type of machine with a 32-bit kernel. Is it a sparse > memory system, or is there a device mapped in that range? > Device mapped range in my case. Fortunately, the address is in 44-bits range. I'd like to focus on making 2^44 work correctly this time. Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige > I guess it would be possible to special-case ioremap to allow the > creation of such mappings, but I don't know what kind of system-wide > fallout would happen as a result. The consequences of something trying > to extract a pfn from one of those ptes would be > >> There are probably places at which PFNs are held in 32-bit numbers, >> although it would be good to track them down if it isn't too expensive >> to fix them (i.e. doesn't affect generic code.) >> > > There are many places which hold pfns in 32 bit variables on 32 bit > systems; the standard type for pfns is "unsigned long", pretty much > everywhere in the kernel. It might be worth defining a pfn_t and > converting usage over to that, but it would be a pervasive change. > >> This also affects paravirt systems, i.e. right now Xen has to locate all >> 32-bit guests below 64 GB, which limits its usefulness. >> > > I don't think the limit is 64GB. A 32-bit PFN limits us to 2^44, which > is 16TB. (32-bit PV Xen guests have another unrelated limit of around > 160GB physical memory because that as much m2p table will fit into the > Xen hole in the kernel mapping.) > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE >>> /* 44=32+12, the limit we can fit into an unsigned long pfn */ >>> #define __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT 44 >>> #define __VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT 32 >>> >>> If there is 44-bits physical address limit, I think it's better to use >>> PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK for masking physical address, instead of "(phys_addr >>> >>>>> PAGE_SHIFT)<< PAGE_SHIFT)". The PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK would become >>>>> >>> greater value when 44-bits physical address limit is eliminated. And >>> maybe we need to change phys_addr_valid() returns error if physical >>> address is above (1<< __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT)? >>> >> The real question is how much we can fix without an unreasonable cost. >> > > I think it would be a pretty large change. From the Xen's perspective, > any machine even approximately approaching the 2^44 limit will be > capable of running Xen guests in hvm mode, so PV isn't really a concern. > > J > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/