[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen/arm: fix mask calculation in init_pdx



Hi Jan,

On 5/7/19 8:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.05.19 at 17:26, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/6/19 10:06 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.05.19 at 22:50, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
@@ -481,10 +481,15 @@ static paddr_t __init next_module(paddr_t s, paddr_t *end)
   static void __init init_pdx(void)
   {
       paddr_t bank_start, bank_size, bank_end;
-
-    u64 mask = pdx_init_mask(bootinfo.mem.bank[0].start);
+    u64 mask;
       int bank;
+ /*
+     * We always map the first 1<<MAX_ORDER of RAM, hence, they are left

"... pages of RAM." ?

+     * uncompressed.
+     */
+    mask = pdx_init_mask(1ULL << (MAX_ORDER + PAGE_SHIFT));

PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER?

Hmmm, I am not entirely convince this will give the correct value
because PAGE_SIZE is defined as (_AC(1, L) << PAGE_SHIFT.

Oh, indeed, for an abstract 32-bit arch this would de-generate, due
to MAX_ORDER being 20. Nevertheless I think the expression used
invites for "cleaning up" (making the same mistake I've made), and
since this is in Arm-specific code (where MAX_ORDER is 18) I think it
would still be better to use the suggested alternative.

The comment on top of PAGE_SIZE in asm-x86/page.h leads to think that PAGE_SIZE should use signed quantities. So I am not sure whether it is safe to switch to UL here.

If we keep PAGE_SIZE as signed quantities, then I would rather not used your suggestion because this may introduce buggy code if MAX_ORDER is ever updated on Arm.


I wonder whether pdx_init_mask() itself wouldn't better apply this
(lower) cap

Do you mean always returning (PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER) or capping the
init mask?

Note that the later will not produce the same behavior as this patch.

Since I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "capping the
init mask", I'm also uncertain what alternative behavior you're
thinking of. What I'm suggesting is

u64 __init pdx_init_mask(u64 base_addr)
{
     return fill_mask(max(base_addr, (uint64_t)PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER) - 1);
}

As I pointed out in the original thread, there are a couple of issues with this suggestion: 1) banks are not ordered on Arm, so the pdx mask may get initialized with a higher bank address preventing the PDX compression to work 2) the PDX will not be able to compress any bits between 0 and the MSB 1' in the base_addr. In other word, for a base address 0x200000000 (8GB), the initial mask will be 0x1ffffffff. I am aware of some platforms with some interesting first bank base address (i.e above 4GB).

2) is not overly critical, but I think 1) should be addressed.

At least on Arm, I don't see any real value to initialize the PDX mask with a base address. I would be more keen to implement pdx_init_mask() as:

return fill_mask(((uint64_t)PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER - 1);

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.