From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Explicit cast conversions to correct data type
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 13:52:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z73LEkHklpjvIlmZ@J2N7QTR9R3.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e1721a1-54a4-4007-a0f5-d651f5f21ae2@arm.com>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:00:40PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 25/02/2025 12:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 09:26:46AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> >>
> >> When CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52 is enabled, page table helpers __pte_to_phys()
> >> and __phys_to_pte_val() are functions which return phys_addr_t and pteval_t
> >> respectively as expected. But otherwise without this config being enabled,
> >> they are defined as macros and their return types are implicit.
> >>
> >> Until now this has worked out correctly as both pte_t and phys_addr_t data
> >> types have been 64 bits. But with the introduction of 128 bit page tables,
> >> pte_t becomes 128 bits. Hence this ends up with incorrect widths after the
> >> conversions, which leads to compiler warnings.
> >
> > Does 128-bit page table not imply 52-bit PAs?
>
> Not to my knowledge. For now the prototype code base is explicitly sticking to
> 48-bit PA and 44-bit VA (for initial simplicitly because that's the limit for 4
> levels).
Fair enough; info dump below, but hopefully nothing of consequence.
I assume that you're relying on the VMSAv9-128 PA bits [48:12] being in the
same place as in the VMSAv8-64 descriptors, and being handled by the same
PTE_ADDR_LOW mask that we use for CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52=n.
From a quick scan of ARM DDI 0487 L.a, the VMSAv9-128 translation table
descriptor format always contains a 56-bit PA (though PARange could be
smaller than that). Bits [51:49] are packed differently than in
VMSAv8-64 descriptors, and bits [55:52] are obviously new.
> >> Fix the warnings by explicitly casting to the correct type after doing the
> >> conversion.
> >
> > I think it would be simpler and clearer if we replaced the macros with
> > functions, such that __pte_to_phys() and __phys_to_pte_val() are
> > *always* functions.
>
> Yeah, agreed. This was initially just a hack I did to get things working.
Cool; sounds like we're aligned.
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-25 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-19 3:56 Anshuman Khandual
2025-02-25 12:32 ` Mark Rutland
2025-02-25 13:00 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-02-25 13:52 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2025-02-26 11:45 ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-02-26 12:19 ` Ryan Roberts
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=Z73LEkHklpjvIlmZ@J2N7QTR9R3.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=will@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®