Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] arm64: Implement page table free interfaces

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 5/23/2018 7:31 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Chintan,

Hi Will,


[as a side note: I'm confused on the status of this patch series, as part
  of it was reposted separately by Toshi. Please can you work together?]

I will share all 4 patches once again as v10 and take latest version of
1/4 as updated by Toshi.


On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 01:11:33PM +0530, Chintan Pandya wrote:
Implement pud_free_pmd_page() and pmd_free_pte_page().

Implementation requires,
  1) Clearing off the current pud/pmd entry
  2) Invalidate TLB which could have previously
     valid but not stale entry
  3) Freeing of the un-used next level page tables

Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya <cpandya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
index da98828..0f651db 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
  #include <asm/memblock.h>
  #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
  #include <asm/ptdump.h>
+#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
#define NO_BLOCK_MAPPINGS BIT(0)
  #define NO_CONT_MAPPINGS	BIT(1)
@@ -973,12 +974,32 @@ int pmd_clear_huge(pmd_t *pmdp)
  	return 1;
  }
-int pud_free_pmd_page(pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr)
+int pmd_free_pte_page(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr)
  {
-	return pud_none(*pud);
+	pmd_t *table;
+
+	if (pmd_present(READ_ONCE(*pmdp))) {

Might also be worth checking pmd_table here, just in case. (same for pud)

I had that check in v2 as below.

if (pud_val(*pud) && !pud_huge(*pud))

But removed that in v3 as unmap should change this to NONE if it is
not table. I still don't see the need of it.


+		table = __va(pmd_val(*pmdp));

Can you avoid dereferencing *pmdp twice, and instead READ_ONCE into a local
variable, please? (same for pud)

Okay.


+		pmd_clear(pmdp);
+		__flush_tlb_kernel_pgtable(addr);
+		free_page((unsigned long) table);

Shouldn't this be pte_free_kernel, to pair with pte_alloc_kernel which
was used to allocate the page in the first place? (similarly for pud)

Okay.


+	}
+	return 1;
  }
-int pmd_free_pte_page(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr)
+int pud_free_pmd_page(pud_t *pudp, unsigned long addr)
  {
-	return pmd_none(*pmd);
+	pmd_t *table;
+	int i;
+
+	if (pud_present(READ_ONCE(*pudp))) {
+		table = __va(pud_val(*pudp));
+		for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++)
+			pmd_free_pte_page(&table[i], addr + (i * PMD_SIZE));

I think it would be cleaner to write this as a do { ... } while, for
consistency with the ioremap and vmalloc code.

Okay.

I'll raise v10 fixing above things. Thanks for the review.


Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel


Chintan
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation
Collaborative Project



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux