| Message ID | 20240122194200.381241-2-david@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm/memory: optimize fork() with PTE-mapped THP | expand |
On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: > We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's > simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > --- > arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h > index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h > @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) > extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); > #endif > > +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT > + > void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, > pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); > #define set_ptes set_ptes > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h > index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h > @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, unsigned int nr_pages) > mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); > } > > +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) { return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); } I'll do a separate patch to fix the already broken arm64 set_ptes() implementation. I'm not sure if this type of problem might also apply to other arches? > + > static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, > unsigned long __always_unused addr, > pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte, unsigned int nr)
On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >> #endif >> >> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >> + >> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >> #define set_ptes set_ptes >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, unsigned int nr_pages) >> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >> } >> >> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT > > I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It > works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not > kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the > physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, just like set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. > > Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, > OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is > coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. > Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. > > So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): > > #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn > static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) > { > return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); > } > > I'll do a separate patch to fix the already broken arm64 set_ptes() implementation. Make sense. > > I'm not sure if this type of problem might also apply to other arches? I saw similar handling in the PPC implementation of set_ptes, but was not able to convince me that it is actually required there. pte_pfn on ppc does: static inline unsigned long pte_pfn(pte_t pte) { return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_RPN_MASK) >> PTE_RPN_SHIFT; } But that means that the PFNs *are* contiguous. If high bits are used for something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). I guess pte_pfn() implementations should tell us if anything special needs to happen.
On 23.01.24 11:48, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >>> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >>> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >>> #endif >>> >>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>> + >>> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >>> #define set_ptes set_ptes >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, unsigned int nr_pages) >>> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >>> } >>> >>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >> >> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It >> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not >> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. > > Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, > just like set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. > >> >> Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, >> OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is >> coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. >> Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. >> >> So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): >> >> #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn >> static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) >> { >> return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); >> } >> Digging into the details, on arm64 we have: #define pte_pfn(pte) (__pte_to_phys(pte) >> PAGE_SHIFT) and #define __pte_to_phys(pte) (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_MASK) But that implies, that upstream the PFN is always contiguous, no?
On 23/01/2024 10:48, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >>> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >>> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >>> #endif >>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>> + >>> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >>> #define set_ptes set_ptes >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, >>> unsigned int nr_pages) >>> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >>> } >>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >> >> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It >> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not >> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. > > Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, just like > set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. > >> >> Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, >> OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is >> coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. >> Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. >> >> So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): >> >> #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn >> static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) >> { >> return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); >> } >> >> I'll do a separate patch to fix the already broken arm64 set_ptes() >> implementation. > > Make sense. > >> >> I'm not sure if this type of problem might also apply to other arches? > > I saw similar handling in the PPC implementation of set_ptes, but was not able > to convince me that it is actually required there. > > pte_pfn on ppc does: > > static inline unsigned long pte_pfn(pte_t pte) > { > return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_RPN_MASK) >> PTE_RPN_SHIFT; > } > > But that means that the PFNs *are* contiguous. all the ppc pfn_pte() implementations also only shift the pfn, so I think ppc is safe to just define PFN_PTE_SHIFT. Although 2 of the 3 implementations shift by PTE_RPN_SHIFT and the other shifts by PAGE_SIZE, so you might want to define PFN_PTE_SHIFT separately for all 3 configs? > If high bits are used for > something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that > shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not > detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. Exactly. > > Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just > hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). pte_pgprot() is not a "proper" arch interface (its only required by the core-mm if the arch implements a certain Kconfig IIRC). For arm64, all bits that are not pfn are pgprot, so there are no bits lost. > > > I guess pte_pfn() implementations should tell us if anything special needs to > happen. >
Le 23/01/2024 à 11:48, David Hildenbrand a écrit : > On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >>> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t >>> pteval) >>> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >>> #endif >>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>> + >>> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >>> #define set_ptes set_ptes >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t >>> pte, unsigned int nr_pages) >>> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >>> } >>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >> >> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of >> set_ptes(). It >> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high >> bits are not >> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. > > Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, > just like set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. > >> >> Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, >> OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base >> pages is >> coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in >> PTE[9:8]. >> Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. >> >> So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): >> >> #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn >> static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) >> { >> return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); >> } >> >> I'll do a separate patch to fix the already broken arm64 set_ptes() >> implementation. > > Make sense. > >> >> I'm not sure if this type of problem might also apply to other arches? > > I saw similar handling in the PPC implementation of set_ptes, but was > not able to convince me that it is actually required there. > > pte_pfn on ppc does: > > static inline unsigned long pte_pfn(pte_t pte) > { > return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_RPN_MASK) >> PTE_RPN_SHIFT; > } > > But that means that the PFNs *are* contiguous. If high bits are used for > something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but > that shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, > we'd not detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. Yes PFNs are contiguous. The only thing is that the PFN is not located at PAGE_SHIFT, see https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.3-rc2/source/arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/pte-e500.h#L63 On powerpc e500 we have 24 PTE flags and the RPN starts above that. The mask is then standard: #define PTE_RPN_MASK (~((1ULL << PTE_RPN_SHIFT) - 1)) Christophe > > Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I > just hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the > pte_pgprot(). > > > I guess pte_pfn() implementations should tell us if anything special > needs to happen. >
Le 23/01/2024 à 12:08, Ryan Roberts a écrit : > On 23/01/2024 10:48, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >>>> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >>>> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >>>> #endif >>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>>> + >>>> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>>> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >>>> #define set_ptes set_ptes >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, >>>> unsigned int nr_pages) >>>> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >>>> } >>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>> >>> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It >>> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not >>> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >>> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. >> >> Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, just like >> set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. >> >>> >>> Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, >>> OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is >>> coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. >>> Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. >>> >>> So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): >>> >>> #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn >>> static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) >>> { >>> return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); >>> } >>> >>> I'll do a separate patch to fix the already broken arm64 set_ptes() >>> implementation. >> >> Make sense. >> >>> >>> I'm not sure if this type of problem might also apply to other arches? >> >> I saw similar handling in the PPC implementation of set_ptes, but was not able >> to convince me that it is actually required there. >> >> pte_pfn on ppc does: >> >> static inline unsigned long pte_pfn(pte_t pte) >> { >> return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_RPN_MASK) >> PTE_RPN_SHIFT; >> } >> >> But that means that the PFNs *are* contiguous. > > all the ppc pfn_pte() implementations also only shift the pfn, so I think ppc is > safe to just define PFN_PTE_SHIFT. Although 2 of the 3 implementations shift by > PTE_RPN_SHIFT and the other shifts by PAGE_SIZE, so you might want to define > PFN_PTE_SHIFT separately for all 3 configs? We have PTE_RPN_SHIFT defined for all 4 implementations, for some of them you are right it is defined as PAGE_SHIFT, but I see no reason to define PFN_PTE_SHIFT separately. > >> If high bits are used for >> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. > > Exactly. > >> >> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). > > I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). Agreed. > > pte_pgprot() is not a "proper" arch interface (its only required by the core-mm > if the arch implements a certain Kconfig IIRC). For arm64, all bits that are not > pfn are pgprot, so there are no bits lost. > >> >> >> I guess pte_pfn() implementations should tell us if anything special needs to >> happen. >> >
On 23/01/2024 11:02, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 23.01.24 11:48, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >>>> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >>>> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >>>> #endif >>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>>> + >>>> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>>> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >>>> #define set_ptes set_ptes >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, >>>> unsigned int nr_pages) >>>> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >>>> } >>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>> >>> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It >>> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not >>> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >>> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. >> >> Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, >> just like set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. >> >>> >>> Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, >>> OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is >>> coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. >>> Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. >>> >>> So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): >>> >>> #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn >>> static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) >>> { >>> return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); >>> } >>> > > Digging into the details, on arm64 we have: > > #define pte_pfn(pte) (__pte_to_phys(pte) >> PAGE_SHIFT) > > and > > #define __pte_to_phys(pte) (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_MASK) > > But that implies, that upstream the PFN is always contiguous, no? > But __pte_to_phys() and __phys_to_pte_val() depend on a Kconfig. If PA bits is 52, the bits are not all contiguous: #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52 static inline phys_addr_t __pte_to_phys(pte_t pte) { return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_LOW) | ((pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_HIGH) << PTE_ADDR_HIGH_SHIFT); } static inline pteval_t __phys_to_pte_val(phys_addr_t phys) { return (phys | (phys >> PTE_ADDR_HIGH_SHIFT)) & PTE_ADDR_MASK; } #else #define __pte_to_phys(pte) (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_MASK) #define __phys_to_pte_val(phys) (phys) #endif
>> >>> If high bits are used for >>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >> >> Exactly. >> >>> >>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >> >> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). > > Agreed. So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, break; ptep++; addr += PAGE_SIZE; - /* - * increment the pfn. - */ - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); } }
On 23.01.24 12:17, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 23/01/2024 11:02, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 23.01.24 11:48, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>> On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >>>>> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >>>>> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >>>>> #endif >>>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>>>> + >>>>> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>>>> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >>>>> #define set_ptes set_ptes >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, >>>>> unsigned int nr_pages) >>>>> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >>>>> } >>>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>>> >>>> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It >>>> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not >>>> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >>>> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. >>> >>> Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, >>> just like set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. >>> >>>> >>>> Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, >>>> OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is >>>> coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. >>>> Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. >>>> >>>> So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): >>>> >>>> #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn >>>> static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) >>>> { >>>> return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); >>>> } >>>> >> >> Digging into the details, on arm64 we have: >> >> #define pte_pfn(pte) (__pte_to_phys(pte) >> PAGE_SHIFT) >> >> and >> >> #define __pte_to_phys(pte) (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_MASK) >> >> But that implies, that upstream the PFN is always contiguous, no? >> > > > But __pte_to_phys() and __phys_to_pte_val() depend on a Kconfig. If PA bits is > 52, the bits are not all contiguous: > > #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52 > static inline phys_addr_t __pte_to_phys(pte_t pte) > { > return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_LOW) | > ((pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_HIGH) << PTE_ADDR_HIGH_SHIFT); > } > static inline pteval_t __phys_to_pte_val(phys_addr_t phys) > { > return (phys | (phys >> PTE_ADDR_HIGH_SHIFT)) & PTE_ADDR_MASK; > } > #else > #define __pte_to_phys(pte) (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_MASK) > #define __phys_to_pte_val(phys) (phys) > #endif > Ah, how could I've missed that. Agreed, set_ptes() and this patch are broken. Do you want to send a patch to implement pte_next_pfn() on arm64, and then use pte_next_pfn() in set_ptes()? Then I can drop this patch here completely from this series.
On 23/01/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> >>>> If high bits are used for >>>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>>> >>>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >>> >>> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). >> >> Agreed. > > So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, > pte_t *ptep, > break; > ptep++; > addr += PAGE_SIZE; > - /* > - * increment the pfn. > - */ > - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); > + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); > } > } Looks like commit 47b8def9358c ("powerpc/mm: Avoid calling arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu() in set_ptes") changed from doing the simple increment to this more complex approach, but the log doesn't say why. > > >
On 23.01.24 12:38, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 23/01/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> >>>>> If high bits are used for >>>>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>>>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>>>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >>>> >>>> Exactly. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>>>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >>>> >>>> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). >>> >>> Agreed. >> >> So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >> index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >> @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >> pte_t *ptep, >> break; >> ptep++; >> addr += PAGE_SIZE; >> - /* >> - * increment the pfn. >> - */ >> - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); >> + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); >> } >> } > > Looks like commit 47b8def9358c ("powerpc/mm: Avoid calling > arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu() in set_ptes") changed from doing the simple > increment to this more complex approach, but the log doesn't say why. @Aneesh, was that change on purpose?
On 23/01/2024 11:33, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 23.01.24 12:17, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 23/01/2024 11:02, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 23.01.24 11:48, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 23.01.24 11:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 22/01/2024 19:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>> We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's >>>>>> simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ >>>>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>>> index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >>>>>> extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); >>>>>> #endif >>>>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>>>>> + >>>>>> void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>>>>> pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); >>>>>> #define set_ptes set_ptes >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>>> index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>>>> @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, >>>>>> unsigned int nr_pages) >>>>>> mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); >>>>>> } >>>>>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >>>>> >>>>> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It >>>>> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are >>>>> not >>>>> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >>>>> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. >>>> >>>> Right, as soon as the PTE bits are not contiguous, this stops working, >>>> just like set_ptes() would, which I used as orientation. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today, only the 64K base page config can support 52 bits, and for this, >>>>> OA[51:48] are stored in PTE[15:12]. But 52 bits for 4K and 16K base pages is >>>>> coming (hopefully v6.9) and in this case OA[51:50] are stored in PTE[9:8]. >>>>> Fortunately we already have helpers in arm64 to abstract this. >>>>> >>>>> So I think arm64 will want to define its own pte_next_pfn(): >>>>> >>>>> #define pte_next_pfn pte_next_pfn >>>>> static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) >>>>> { >>>>> return pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot(pte)); >>>>> } >>>>> >>> >>> Digging into the details, on arm64 we have: >>> >>> #define pte_pfn(pte) (__pte_to_phys(pte) >> PAGE_SHIFT) >>> >>> and >>> >>> #define __pte_to_phys(pte) (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_MASK) >>> >>> But that implies, that upstream the PFN is always contiguous, no? >>> >> >> >> But __pte_to_phys() and __phys_to_pte_val() depend on a Kconfig. If PA bits is >> 52, the bits are not all contiguous: >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52 >> static inline phys_addr_t __pte_to_phys(pte_t pte) >> { >> return (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_LOW) | >> ((pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_HIGH) << PTE_ADDR_HIGH_SHIFT); >> } >> static inline pteval_t __phys_to_pte_val(phys_addr_t phys) >> { >> return (phys | (phys >> PTE_ADDR_HIGH_SHIFT)) & PTE_ADDR_MASK; >> } >> #else >> #define __pte_to_phys(pte) (pte_val(pte) & PTE_ADDR_MASK) >> #define __phys_to_pte_val(phys) (phys) >> #endif >> > > Ah, how could I've missed that. Agreed, set_ptes() and this patch are broken. > > Do you want to send a patch to implement pte_next_pfn() on arm64, and then use > pte_next_pfn() in set_ptes()? Then I can drop this patch here completely from > this series. Yes good idea. I probably won't get around to it until tomorrow.
Le 23/01/2024 à 12:38, Ryan Roberts a écrit : > On 23/01/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> >>>>> If high bits are used for >>>>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>>>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>>>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >>>> >>>> Exactly. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>>>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >>>> >>>> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). >>> >>> Agreed. >> >> So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >> index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >> @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >> pte_t *ptep, >> break; >> ptep++; >> addr += PAGE_SIZE; >> - /* >> - * increment the pfn. >> - */ >> - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); >> + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); >> } >> } > > Looks like commit 47b8def9358c ("powerpc/mm: Avoid calling > arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu() in set_ptes") changed from doing the simple > increment to this more complex approach, but the log doesn't say why. Right. There was a discussion about it without any conclusion: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20231024143604.16749-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com/ As far as understand the simple increment is better on ppc/32 but worse in ppc/64. Christophe
On 23.01.24 12:48, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 23/01/2024 à 12:38, Ryan Roberts a écrit : >> On 23/01/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If high bits are used for >>>>>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>>>>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>>>>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>>>>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >>>>> >>>>> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>> >>> So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >>> index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >>> @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>> pte_t *ptep, >>> break; >>> ptep++; >>> addr += PAGE_SIZE; >>> - /* >>> - * increment the pfn. >>> - */ >>> - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); >>> + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); >>> } >>> } >> >> Looks like commit 47b8def9358c ("powerpc/mm: Avoid calling >> arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu() in set_ptes") changed from doing the simple >> increment to this more complex approach, but the log doesn't say why. > > Right. There was a discussion about it without any conclusion: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20231024143604.16749-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com/ > > As far as understand the simple increment is better on ppc/32 but worse > in ppc/64. Sounds like we're micro-optimizing for a specific compiler version output. Hurray.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:34:21AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote: > > +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT > > I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It > works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not > kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the > physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. I'd like to see the folio allocation that can straddle bit 48 ... agreed, it's not workable _in general_, but specifically for a memory allocation from a power-of-two allocator, you'd have to do a 49-bit allocation (half a petabyte) to care.
On 23/01/2024 15:01, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:34:21AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT >> >> I think this is buggy. And so is the arm64 implementation of set_ptes(). It >> works fine for 48-bit output address, but for 52-bit OAs, the high bits are not >> kept contigously, so if you happen to be setting a mapping for which the >> physical memory block straddles bit 48, this won't work. > > I'd like to see the folio allocation that can straddle bit 48 ... > > agreed, it's not workable _in general_, but specifically for a memory > allocation from a power-of-two allocator, you'd have to do a 49-bit > allocation (half a petabyte) to care. Hmm good point. So its a hypothetical bug, not an actual bug. Personally I'm still inclined to "fix" it. Although its going to cost a few more instructions. Shout if you disagree.
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes: > On 23.01.24 12:38, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 23/01/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If high bits are used for >>>>>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>>>>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>>>>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>>>>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >>>>> >>>>> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>> >>> So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >>> index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c >>> @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>> pte_t *ptep, >>> break; >>> ptep++; >>> addr += PAGE_SIZE; >>> - /* >>> - * increment the pfn. >>> - */ >>> - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); >>> + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); >>> } >>> } >> >> Looks like commit 47b8def9358c ("powerpc/mm: Avoid calling >> arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu() in set_ptes") changed from doing the simple >> increment to this more complex approach, but the log doesn't say why. > > @Aneesh, was that change on purpose? > Because we had a bug with the patch that introduced the change and that line was confusing. The right thing should have been to add pte_pfn_next() to make it clear. It was confusing because not all pte format had pfn at PAGE_SHIFT offset (even though we did use the correct PTE_RPN_SHIFT in this specific case). To make it simpler I ended up switching that line to pte_pfn(pte) + 1 . -aneesh
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> If high bits are used for >>>> something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that >>>> shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not >>>> detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way. >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>>> >>>> Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just >>>> hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot(). >>> >>> I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn(). >> >> Agreed. > > So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage): > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c > @@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, > break; > ptep++; > addr += PAGE_SIZE; > - /* > - * increment the pfn. > - */ > - pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte))); > + pte = pte_next_pfn(pte); > } > } Agreed. -aneesh
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h index d657b84b6bf70..be91e376df79e 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ static inline void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval); #endif +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT + void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval, unsigned int nr); #define set_ptes set_ptes diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h index 79ce70fbb751c..d4b3bd96e3304 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h @@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ static inline void __sync_cache_and_tags(pte_t pte, unsigned int nr_pages) mte_sync_tags(pte, nr_pages); } +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT + static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long __always_unused addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte, unsigned int nr)
We want to make use of pte_next_pfn() outside of set_ptes(). Let's simpliy define PFN_PTE_SHIFT, required by pte_next_pfn(). Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> --- arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)