Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/32: Fix hugepage allocation on 8xx at hint address | From | Christophe LEROY <> | Date | Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:57:38 +0100 |
| |
Le 16/01/2018 à 17:41, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit : > > > On 01/16/2018 10:01 PM, Christophe LEROY wrote: >> >>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h >>>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h >>>> index 56234c6fcd61..a7baef5bbe5f 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h >>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_64.h >>>> @@ -91,30 +91,13 @@ extern u64 ppc64_pft_size; >>>> #define SLICE_LOW_SHIFT 28 >>>> #define SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT 40 >>>> -#define SLICE_LOW_TOP (0x100000000ul) >>>> -#define SLICE_NUM_LOW (SLICE_LOW_TOP >> SLICE_LOW_SHIFT) >>>> +#define SLICE_LOW_TOP (0xfffffffful) >>>> +#define SLICE_NUM_LOW ((SLICE_LOW_TOP >> SLICE_LOW_SHIFT) + 1) >>>> #define SLICE_NUM_HIGH (H_PGTABLE_RANGE >> SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT) >>> >>> >>> Why are you changing this? is this a bug fix? >> >> That's because 0x100000000ul is out of range of unsigned long on PPC32. > > Ok that detail was important. I missed that. > >> >>> >>>> #define GET_LOW_SLICE_INDEX(addr) ((addr) >> SLICE_LOW_SHIFT) >>>> #define GET_HIGH_SLICE_INDEX(addr) ((addr) >> SLICE_HIGH_SHIFT) >>>> -#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ >>>> -struct mm_struct; >>>> - >>>> -extern unsigned long slice_get_unmapped_area(unsigned long addr, >>>> - unsigned long len, >>>> - unsigned long flags, >>>> - unsigned int psize, >>>> - int topdown); >>>> - >>>> -extern unsigned int get_slice_psize(struct mm_struct *mm, >>>> - unsigned long addr); >>>> - >>>> -extern void slice_set_user_psize(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int >>>> psize); >>>> -extern void slice_set_range_psize(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned >>>> long start, >>>> - unsigned long len, unsigned int psize); >>>> - >>>> -#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */ >>>> #else >>>> #define slice_init() >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 >>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c >>>> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c >>>> index 9d213542a48b..a285e1067713 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c >>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c >>>> @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) >>>> if (!radix_enabled()) >>>> init_mm.context.slb_addr_limit = DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW_USER64; >>>> #else >>>> -#error "context.addr_limit not initialized." >>>> + init_mm.context.slb_addr_limit = DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW; >>>> #endif >>> >>> >>> May be put this within #ifdef 8XX and retain the error? >> >> Is this error really worth it ? >> I wanted to avoid spreading too many #ifdef PPC_8xx, but ok I can do >> that. >> >>> >>>> #endif >>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/8xx_mmu.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/8xx_mmu.c >>>> index f29212e40f40..0be77709446c 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/8xx_mmu.c >>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/8xx_mmu.c >>>> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ void set_context(unsigned long id, pgd_t *pgd) >>>> mtspr(SPRN_M_TW, __pa(pgd) - offset); >>>> /* Update context */ >>>> - mtspr(SPRN_M_CASID, id); >>>> + mtspr(SPRN_M_CASID, id - 1); >>>> /* sync */ >>>> mb(); >>>> } >>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c >>>> b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c >>>> index 655a5a9a183d..3266b3326088 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c >>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c >>>> @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ static unsigned int get_paca_psize(unsigned >>>> long addr) >>>> unsigned char *hpsizes; >>>> unsigned long index, mask_index; >>>> - if (addr < SLICE_LOW_TOP) { >>>> + if (addr <= SLICE_LOW_TOP) { >>> >>> If this is part of bug fix, please do it as part of seperate patch >>> with details >> >> As explained above, in order to allow comparison to work on PPC32, >> SLICE_LOW_TOP has to be 0xffffffff instead of 0x100000000 >> >> How should I split in separate patches ? Something like ? >> 1/ Slice support for PPC32 > 2/ Activate slice for 8xx > > Yes something like that. Will you be able to avoid that > if (SLICE_NUM_HIGH) from the code? That makes the code ugly. Right now > i don't have definite suggestion on what we could do though. >
Could use #ifdefs instead, but in my mind it would be even more ugly.
I would have liked just doing nothing, but the issue is that at the moment bitmap_xxx() functions are not prepared to handle bitmaps of size zero. Should we try to change that ? Any chance to succeed ?
Christophe
| |