Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:12:11 +0000 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: mm: report both sections from PMD |
| |
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:46:38PM +0000, Kees Cook wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h > index 03243f7eeddf..fb3de59ee811 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable-3level.h > @@ -138,10 +138,6 @@ > #define pud_none(pud) (!pud_val(pud)) > #define pud_bad(pud) (!(pud_val(pud) & 2)) > #define pud_present(pud) (pud_val(pud)) > -#define pmd_table(pmd) ((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == \ > - PMD_TYPE_TABLE) > -#define pmd_sect(pmd) ((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == \ > - PMD_TYPE_SECT) > #define pmd_large(pmd) pmd_sect(pmd) > > #define pud_clear(pudp) \ > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h > index 7d59b524f2af..934aa5b60c7c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/pgtable.h > @@ -183,6 +183,10 @@ extern pgd_t swapper_pg_dir[PTRS_PER_PGD]; > > #define pmd_none(pmd) (!pmd_val(pmd)) > #define pmd_present(pmd) (pmd_val(pmd)) > +#define pmd_table(pmd) ((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == \ > + PMD_TYPE_TABLE) > +#define pmd_sect(pmd) ((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == \ > + PMD_TYPE_SECT)
Do you still need to move these two if you only use pmd_large()? AFAICT, it is equivalent to pmd_sect().
> static inline pte_t *pmd_page_vaddr(pmd_t pmd) > { > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c > index 2b342177f5de..32635b474832 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/dump.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/dump.c > @@ -260,8 +260,14 @@ static void walk_pmd(struct pg_state *st, pud_t *pud, unsigned long start) > > for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++, pmd++) { > addr = start + i * PMD_SIZE; > - if (pmd_none(*pmd) || pmd_large(*pmd) || !pmd_present(*pmd)) > + if (pmd_none(*pmd) || pmd_large(*pmd) || !pmd_present(*pmd)) { > note_page(st, addr, 3, pmd_val(*pmd)); > + if (SECTION_SIZE < PMD_SIZE && > + pmd_sect(*pmd) && pmd_sect(pmd[1])) {
I think the first patch was better with pmd[0] and pmd[1] treated independently if SECTION_SIZE < PMD_SIZE, only that it should have checked for pmd_sect(pmd[1]). I don't see anything in __map_init_section() that would prevent populating only the second pmd leaving the first one empty.
-- Catalin
|  |