Thread (9 messages) flat view 9 messages, 4 authors, 2016-03-16
STALE3794d

Revision v3 of 12 in this series.

Revisions (12)
  1. v1 [diff vs current]
  2. v1 [diff vs current]
  3. v1 [diff vs current]
  4. v1 [diff vs current]
  5. v1 [diff vs current]
  6. v2 [diff vs current]
  7. v3 [diff vs current]
  8. v3 [diff vs current]
  9. v3 [diff vs current]
  10. v3 current
  11. v3 [diff vs current]
  12. v3 [diff vs current]

[PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: Mark kernel page ranges contiguous

From: Will Deacon <hidden>
Date: 2016-02-25 16:16:30

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:46:23AM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
With 64k pages, the next larger segment size is 512M. The linux
kernel also uses different protection flags to cover its code and data.
Because of these requirements, the vast majority of the kernel code and
data structures end up being mapped with 64k pages instead of the larger
pages common with a 4k page kernel.

Recent ARM processors support a contiguous bit in the
page tables which allows a TLB to cover a range larger than a
single PTE if that range is mapped into physically contiguous
RAM.

So, for the kernel its a good idea to set this flag. Some basic
micro benchmarks show it can significantly reduce the number of
L1 dTLB refills.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
index 7711554..ab69a99 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+
 /*
  * Based on arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
  *
@@ -103,17 +104,49 @@ static void split_pmd(pmd_t *pmd, pte_t *pte)
 		 * Need to have the least restrictive permissions available
 		 * permissions will be fixed up later
 		 */
-		set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC));
+		set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC_CONT));
 		pfn++;
 	} while (pte++, i++, i < PTRS_PER_PTE);
 }
 
+static void clear_cont_pte_range(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr)
+{
+	int i;
+
+	pte -= CONT_RANGE_OFFSET(addr);
+	for (i = 0; i < CONT_PTES; i++) {
+		if (pte_cont(*pte))
+			set_pte(pte, pte_mknoncont(*pte));
+		pte++;
+	}
+	flush_tlb_all();
Do you still need this invalidation? I thought the table weren't even
live at this point?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+}
+
+/*
+ * Given a range of PTEs set the pfn and provided page protection flags
+ */
+static void __populate_init_pte(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr,
+			       unsigned long end, phys_addr_t phys,
+			       pgprot_t prot)
+{
+	unsigned long pfn = __phys_to_pfn(phys);
+
+	do {
+		/* clear all the bits except the pfn, then apply the prot */
+		set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, prot));
+		pte++;
+		pfn++;
+		addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+	} while (addr != end);
+}
+
 static void alloc_init_pte(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
-				  unsigned long end, unsigned long pfn,
+				  unsigned long end, phys_addr_t phys,
 				  pgprot_t prot,
 				  phys_addr_t (*pgtable_alloc)(void))
 {
 	pte_t *pte;
+	unsigned long next;
 
 	if (pmd_none(*pmd) || pmd_sect(*pmd)) {
 		phys_addr_t pte_phys = pgtable_alloc();
@@ -127,10 +160,29 @@ static void alloc_init_pte(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
 	BUG_ON(pmd_bad(*pmd));
 
 	pte = pte_set_fixmap_offset(pmd, addr);
+
 	do {
-		set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, prot));
-		pfn++;
-	} while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
+		next = min(end, (addr + CONT_SIZE) & CONT_MASK);
+		if (((addr | next | phys) & ~CONT_MASK) == 0) {
+			/* a block of CONT_PTES	 */
+			__populate_init_pte(pte, addr, next, phys,
+					    prot | __pgprot(PTE_CONT));
+		} else {
+			/*
+			 * If the range being split is already inside of a
+			 * contiguous range but this PTE isn't going to be
+			 * contiguous, then we want to unmark the adjacent
+			 * ranges, then update the portion of the range we
+			 * are interrested in.
+			 */
+			clear_cont_pte_range(pte, addr);
+			__populate_init_pte(pte, addr, next, phys, prot);
I don't understand the comment or the code here... the splitting is now
done seperately, and I can't think of a scenario where you need to clear
the cont hint explicitly for adjacent ptes.

What am I missing?

Will
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help