lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/5] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM
    On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 09:54:04PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
    > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com> wrote:
    > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 06:07:01PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
    > >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com> wrote:
    > >> > Currently direct mappings are created for [ 0 to max_low_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT )
    > >> > and [ 4GB to max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT ), which may include regions that are not
    > >> > backed by actual DRAM. This is fine for holes under 4GB which are covered
    > >> > by fixed and variable range MTRRs to be UC. However, we run into trouble
    > >> > on higher memory addresses which cannot be covered by MTRRs.
    > >> >
    > >> > Our system with 1TB of RAM has an e820 that looks like this:
    > >> >
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x00000000000983ff] usable
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000098400-0x000000000009ffff] reserved
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000000d0000-0x00000000000fffff] reserved
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000000100000-0x00000000c7ebffff] usable
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7ec0000-0x00000000c7ed7fff] ACPI data
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7ed8000-0x00000000c7ed9fff] ACPI NVS
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000c7eda000-0x00000000c7ffffff] reserved
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fec00000-0x00000000fec0ffff] reserved
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fee00000-0x00000000fee00fff] reserved
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x00000000fff00000-0x00000000ffffffff] reserved
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000e037ffffff] usable
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000e038000000-0x000000fcffffffff] reserved
    > >> > BIOS-e820: [mem 0x0000010000000000-0x0000011ffeffffff] usable
    > >> >
    > >> > and so direct mappings are created for huge memory hole between
    > >> > 0x000000e038000000 to 0x0000010000000000. Even though the kernel never
    > >> > generates memory accesses in that region, since the page tables mark
    > >> > them incorrectly as being WB, our (AMD) processor ends up causing a MCE
    > >> > while doing some memory bookkeeping/optimizations around that area.
    > >> >
    > >> > This patch iterates through e820 and only direct maps ranges that are
    > >> > marked as E820_RAM, and keeps track of those pfn ranges. Depending on
    > >> > the alignment of E820 ranges, this may possibly result in using smaller
    > >> > size (i.e. 4K instead of 2M or 1G) page tables.
    > >> >
    > >> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>
    > >> > ---
    > >> > arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h | 9 +++
    > >> > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
    > >> > arch/x86/mm/init.c | 2 +
    > >> > arch/x86/mm/init_64.c | 6 +-
    > >> > 4 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
    > >> >
    > >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
    > >> > index e21fdd1..409047a 100644
    > >> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
    > >> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/page_types.h
    > >> > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
    > >> >
    > >> > #include <linux/const.h>
    > >> > #include <linux/types.h>
    > >> > +#include <asm/e820.h>
    > >> >
    > >> > /* PAGE_SHIFT determines the page size */
    > >> > #define PAGE_SHIFT 12
    > >> > @@ -40,12 +41,20 @@
    > >> > #endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 */
    > >> >
    > >> > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
    > >> > +#include <linux/range.h>
    > >> >
    > >> > extern int devmem_is_allowed(unsigned long pagenr);
    > >> >
    > >> > extern unsigned long max_low_pfn_mapped;
    > >> > extern unsigned long max_pfn_mapped;
    > >> >
    > >> > +extern struct range pfn_mapped[E820_X_MAX];
    > >> > +extern int nr_pfn_mapped;
    > >> > +
    > >> > +extern void add_pfn_range_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn);
    > >> > +extern bool pfn_range_is_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn);
    > >> > +extern bool pfn_is_mapped(unsigned long pfn);
    > >> > +
    > >> > static inline phys_addr_t get_max_mapped(void)
    > >> > {
    > >> > return (phys_addr_t)max_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT;
    > >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
    > >> > index 751e020..4217fb4 100644
    > >> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
    > >> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
    > >> > @@ -115,13 +115,46 @@
    > >> > #include <asm/prom.h>
    > >> >
    > >> > /*
    > >> > - * end_pfn only includes RAM, while max_pfn_mapped includes all e820 entries.
    > >> > - * The direct mapping extends to max_pfn_mapped, so that we can directly access
    > >> > - * apertures, ACPI and other tables without having to play with fixmaps.
    > >> > + * max_low_pfn_mapped: highest direct mapped pfn under 4GB
    > >> > + * max_pfn_mapped: highest direct mapped pfn over 4GB
    > >> > + *
    > >> > + * The direct mapping only covers E820_RAM regions, so the ranges and gaps are
    > >> > + * represented by pfn_mapped
    > >> > */
    > >> > unsigned long max_low_pfn_mapped;
    > >> > unsigned long max_pfn_mapped;
    > >> >
    > >> > +struct range pfn_mapped[E820_X_MAX];
    > >> > +int nr_pfn_mapped;
    > >> > +
    > >> > +void add_pfn_range_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
    > >> > +{
    > >> > + nr_pfn_mapped = add_range_with_merge(pfn_mapped, E820_X_MAX,
    > >> > + nr_pfn_mapped, start_pfn, end_pfn);
    > >> > +
    > >> > + max_pfn_mapped = max(max_pfn_mapped, end_pfn);
    > >> > +
    > >> > + if (end_pfn <= (1UL << (32 - PAGE_SHIFT)))
    > >> > + max_low_pfn_mapped = max(max_low_pfn_mapped, end_pfn);
    > >> > +}
    > >> > +
    > >> > +bool pfn_range_is_mapped(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
    > >> > +{
    > >> > + int i;
    > >> > +
    > >> > + for (i = 0; i < nr_pfn_mapped; i++)
    > >> > + if ((start_pfn >= pfn_mapped[i].start) &&
    > >> > + (end_pfn <= pfn_mapped[i].end))
    > >> > + return true;
    > >> > +
    > >> > + return false;
    > >> > +}
    > >> > +
    > >> > +bool pfn_is_mapped(unsigned long pfn)
    > >> > +{
    > >> > + return pfn_range_is_mapped(pfn, pfn + 1);
    > >> > +}
    > >> > +
    > >>
    > >> looks like you could avoid add pfn_mapped[] array.
    > >>
    > >> pfn_range_is_mapped() should be
    > >> check max_low_pfn_mapped, max_pfn_mapped with
    > >> e820_all_mapped(start, end, E820_RAM).
    > >
    > > Hmm .. I guess that could work .. but what about EFI code that keys off of
    > > EFI memory map? Does the EFI code update e820 and mark as E820_RAM whatever
    > > ranges that it calls init_memory_mapping on (via efi_ioremap?)
    >
    > they are converted to e820 memmap before init_memory_mapping is called.

    Yinghai, another question, what about hotplug? Are we guaranteed that
    we will always be adding memory above max_pfn_mapped? And hotplug will
    also update e820 to mark the range as E820_RAM as well?

    Thanks!

    -Jacob

    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Yinghai
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-08-27 21:21    [W:5.360 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site