[PATCH 1/3] powerpc/32: Fix hugepage allocation on 8xx at hint address

[Christophe LEROY]

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