Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] riscv: Move kernel mapping to vmalloc zone
From: Alex Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>
Date: 2020-07-23 05:22:02
Also in:
linux-mm, linux-riscv, lkml
Hi Benjamin, Le 7/21/20 à 7:11 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt a écrit :
On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 14:36 -0400, Alex Ghiti wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
I guess I don't understand why this is necessary at all. Specifically: why can't we just relocate the kernel within the linear map? That would let the bootloader put the kernel wherever it wants, modulo the physical memory size we support. We'd need to handle the regions that are coupled to the kernel's execution address, but we could just put them in an explicit memory region which is what we should probably be doing anyway.Virtual relocation in the linear mapping requires to move the kernel physically too. Zong implemented this physical move in its KASLR RFC patchset, which is cumbersome since finding an available physical spot is harder than just selecting a virtual range in the vmalloc range. In addition, having the kernel mapping in the linear mapping prevents the use of hugepage for the linear mapping resulting in performance loss (at least for the GB that encompasses the kernel). Why do you find this "ugly" ? The vmalloc region is just a bunch of available virtual addresses to whatever purpose we want, and as noted by Zong, arm64 uses the same scheme.I don't get it :-) At least on powerpc we move the kernel in the linear mapping and it works fine with huge pages, what is your problem there ? You rely on punching small-page size holes in there ?
ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX prevents the use of a hugepage for the kernel mapping in the direct mapping as it sets different permissions to different part of the kernel (data, text..etc).
At least in the old days, there were a number of assumptions that the kernel text/data/bss resides in the linear mapping. If you change that you need to ensure that it's still physically contiguous and you'll have to tweak __va and __pa, which might induce extra overhead.
Yes that's done in this patch and indeed there is an overhead to those functions.
Cheers, Ben.
Thanks, Alex