From: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>
To: X86-ML <x86@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
Chao Wang <chaowang@redhat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:17:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120825001705.GA10812@jshin-Toonie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1345852516-3125-4-git-send-email-jacob.shin@amd.com>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 06:55:14PM -0500, Jacob Shin 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/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);
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_DMI
> RESERVE_BRK(dmi_alloc, 65536);
> #endif
> @@ -296,6 +329,68 @@ static void __init cleanup_highmap(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> +/*
> + * Iterate through E820 memory map and create direct mappings for only E820_RAM
> + * regions. We cannot simply create direct mappings for all pfns from
> + * [0 to max_low_pfn) and [4GB to max_pfn) because of possible memory holes in
> + * high addresses that cannot be marked as UC by fixed/variable range MTRRs.
> + * 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.
> + */
> +static void __init init_memory(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + init_gbpages();
> +
> + /* Enable PSE if available */
> + if (cpu_has_pse)
> + set_in_cr4(X86_CR4_PSE);
> +
> + /* Enable PGE if available */
> + if (cpu_has_pge) {
> + set_in_cr4(X86_CR4_PGE);
> + __supported_pte_mask |= _PAGE_GLOBAL;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < e820.nr_map; i++) {
> + struct e820entry *ei = &e820.map[i];
> + u64 start = ei->addr;
> + u64 end = ei->addr + ei->size;
> +
> + /* we only map E820_RAM */
> + if (ei->type != E820_RAM)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (end <= ISA_END_ADDRESS)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (start <= ISA_END_ADDRESS)
> + start = 0;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> + /* on 32 bit, we only map up to max_low_pfn */
> + if ((start >> PAGE_SHIFT) >= max_low_pfn)
> + continue;
> +
> + if ((end >> PAGE_SHIFT) > max_low_pfn)
> + end = max_low_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +#endif
> + /* the ISA range is always mapped regardless of holes */
> + if (!pfn_range_is_mapped(0, ISA_END_ADDRESS << PAGE_SHIFT) &&
Darn, there is a typo here, should be '>>' not '<<', so sorry about that,
I'll resend in the bit .. my local testing didn't catch that because '<<'
caused the value to be 0.
> + start != 0)
> + init_memory_mapping(0, ISA_END_ADDRESS);
> +
> + init_memory_mapping(start, end);
> + }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> + if (max_pfn > max_low_pfn) {
> + /* can we preseve max_low_pfn ?*/
> + max_low_pfn = max_pfn;
> + }
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> static void __init reserve_brk(void)
> {
> if (_brk_end > _brk_start)
> @@ -911,30 +1006,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>
> setup_real_mode();
>
> - init_gbpages();
> -
> - /* Enable PSE if available */
> - if (cpu_has_pse)
> - set_in_cr4(X86_CR4_PSE);
> + init_memory();
>
> - /* Enable PGE if available */
> - if (cpu_has_pge) {
> - set_in_cr4(X86_CR4_PGE);
> - __supported_pte_mask |= _PAGE_GLOBAL;
> - }
> -
> - /* max_pfn_mapped is updated here */
> - max_low_pfn_mapped = init_memory_mapping(0, max_low_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT);
> - max_pfn_mapped = max_low_pfn_mapped;
> -
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> - if (max_pfn > max_low_pfn) {
> - max_pfn_mapped = init_memory_mapping(1UL<<32,
> - max_pfn<<PAGE_SHIFT);
> - /* can we preseve max_low_pfn ?*/
> - max_low_pfn = max_pfn;
> - }
> -#endif
> memblock.current_limit = get_max_mapped();
> dma_contiguous_reserve(0);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-25 0:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-24 23:55 [PATCH V4 0/5] x86: Create direct mappings for E820_RAM only Jacob Shin
2012-08-24 23:55 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86: Move enabling of PSE and PGE out of init_memory_mapping Jacob Shin
2012-08-25 1:25 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-25 1:49 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-25 2:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-25 4:15 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-25 4:13 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-24 23:55 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86: find_early_table_space based on memory ranges that are being mapped Jacob Shin
2012-10-21 21:22 ` Tom Rini
2012-08-24 23:55 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM Jacob Shin
2012-08-25 0:17 ` Jacob Shin [this message]
2012-08-25 0:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-25 0:49 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-25 1:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-25 4:20 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-25 4:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-27 19:17 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-27 20:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-25 1:07 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-25 4:24 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-25 4:54 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-27 18:49 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-27 20:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-28 16:06 ` Jacob Shin
2012-08-28 16:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-08-24 23:55 ` [PATCH 4/5] x86: Fixup code testing if a pfn is direct mapped Jacob Shin
2012-08-24 23:55 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86: if kernel .text .data .bss are not marked as E820_RAM, complain and fix Jacob Shin
2012-08-25 1:23 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-08-25 4:25 ` Jacob Shin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120825001705.GA10812@jshin-Toonie \
--to=jacob.shin@amd.com \
--cc=andreas.herrmann3@amd.com \
--cc=borislav.petkov@amd.com \
--cc=chaowang@redhat.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome