mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:45:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121004164551.GA2244@phenom.dumpdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE9FiQUMMRPb2u13R2b7hHSOTgb4jKcnbAace7T22_GCm=-HxQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:57:55AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Stefano Stabellini
> <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> After
> >>
> >> | commit 8548c84da2f47e71bbbe300f55edb768492575f7
> >> | Author: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> >> | Date:   Sun Oct 23 23:19:12 2011 +0200
> >> |
> >> |    x86: Fix S4 regression
> >> |
> >> |    Commit 4b239f458 ("x86-64, mm: Put early page table high") causes a S4
> >> |    regression since 2.6.39, namely the machine reboots occasionally at S4
> >> |    resume.  It doesn't happen always, overall rate is about 1/20.  But,
> >> |    like other bugs, once when this happens, it continues to happen.
> >> |
> >> |    This patch fixes the problem by essentially reverting the memory
> >> |    assignment in the older way.
> >>
> >> Have some page table around 512M again, that will prevent kdump to find 512M
> >> under 768M.
> >>
> >> We need revert that reverting, so we could put page table high again for 64bit.
> >>
> >> Takashi agreed that S4 regression could be something else.
> >>
> >>       https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/15/182
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/mm/init.c |    2 +-
> >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init.c b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> >> index 9f69180..aadb154 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
> >> @@ -76,8 +76,8 @@ static void __init find_early_table_space(struct map_range *mr,
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >>       /* for fixmap */
> >>       tables += roundup(__end_of_fixed_addresses * sizeof(pte_t), PAGE_SIZE);
> >> -#endif
> >>       good_end = max_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >>       base = memblock_find_in_range(start, good_end, tables, PAGE_SIZE);
> >>       if (!base)
> >
> > Isn't this going to cause init_memory_mapping to allocate pagetable
> > pages from memory not yet mapped?
> 
> but 64bit is using ioremap to access those page table buf.
> 
> > Last time I spoke with HPA and Thomas about this, they seem to agree
> > that it isn't a very good idea.
> > Also, it is proven to cause a certain amount of headaches on Xen,
> > see commit d8aa5ec3382e6a545b8f25178d1e0992d4927f19.
> 
> this patchset will allocate page table buf one time only.

As in, if your machine has 8GB, it will allocate pagetables that
span 0->8GB at once?

> So could use ram under 1M to map that page table at first.

Could or does this patch do it? And why 1MB?
> 
> so that will make it xen happy ?

The issues that Xen faces are purely due to the fact that they
must be RO when they are in use. I believe (and without actually
checking it just to make sure) that it does not matter where
the page-tables are located. But with the current generic code
the location is quite linear: it starts with pgt_buf_start and
goes up to pgt_buf_top. So how would this patch move the location
of the page-table to be under 1MB?

Perhaps we are talking about seperate topics?

My recollection of memblock_find_in_range is that it will try
the end of the range to find a suitable "chunk" that satisfies
the 'size' and 'aligment' parameters?

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-04 16:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-30  7:57 [PATCH -v4 00/13] x86, mm: init_memory_mapping cleanup Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 01/13] x86, mm: Add global page_size_mask and probe one time only Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 02/13] x86, mm: Split out split_mem_range from init_memory_mapping Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 03/13] x86, mm: Move init_memory_mapping calling out of setup.c Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit Yinghai Lu
2012-10-01 11:00   ` Stefano Stabellini
2012-10-03 16:51     ` Jacob Shin
2012-10-03 18:34       ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-04 13:56       ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-04 21:52         ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-04 16:19       ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 16:46         ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-04 21:29           ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-05 21:04             ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-05 21:19               ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-05 21:32                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-05 21:37                   ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-05 21:41                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-05 21:43                       ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-05 22:01                         ` 896MB address limit (was: Re: [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit) Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-06  0:18                       ` [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-06  0:45                         ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-06  1:02                           ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-06  0:17                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-06  0:28                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-06  0:36                       ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-04 15:57     ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 16:45       ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [this message]
2012-10-04 21:21         ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 21:40           ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 21:41             ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-04 21:46               ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-04 21:54                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-05  7:46                   ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-05 11:27                     ` Stefano Stabellini
2012-10-05 14:58                       ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-06  7:44                         ` [PATCH 0/3] x86: pre mapping page table to make xen happy Yinghai Lu
2012-10-06  7:44                           ` [PATCH 1/3] x86: get early page table from BRK Yinghai Lu
2012-10-08 12:09                             ` Stefano Stabellini
2012-10-06  7:44                           ` [PATCH 2/3] x86, mm: Don't clear page table if next range is ram Yinghai Lu
2012-10-09 15:46                             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-10  1:00                               ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-10 13:41                                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-10 14:43                                   ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-06  7:44                           ` [PATCH 3/3] x86, mm: Remove early_memremap workaround for page table accessing Yinghai Lu
2012-10-09 15:48                             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-10-08  6:36                         ` [PATCH 04/13] x86, mm: Revert back good_end setting for 64bit Yinghai Lu
2012-10-05 10:47       ` Stefano Stabellini
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 05/13] x86, mm: Find early page table buffer altogether Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 06/13] x86, mm: Separate out calculate_table_space_size() Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 07/13] x86, mm: Move down two calculate_table_space_size down Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 08/13] x86, mm: Set memblock initial limit to 1M Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 09/13] x86: if kernel .text .data .bss are not marked as E820_RAM, complain and fix Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 10/13] x86: Fixup code testing if a pfn is direct mapped Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 11/13] x86: Only direct map addresses that are marked as E820_RAM Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 12/13] x86/mm: calculate_table_space_size based on memory ranges that are being mapped Yinghai Lu
2012-09-30  7:57 ` [PATCH 13/13] x86, mm: Use func pointer to table size calculation and mapping Yinghai Lu

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=20121004164551.GA2244@phenom.dumpdata.com \
    --to=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jacob.shin@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@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