On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 01:26:47 PST (-0800), alex@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Palmer,
Le 3/9/21 à 9:54 PM, Palmer Dabbelt a écrit :
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:04:50 PST (-0800), alex@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I decided to split sv48 support in small series to ease the review.
This patchset pushes the kernel mapping (modules and BPF too) to the last
4GB of the 64bit address space, this allows to:
- implement relocatable kernel (that will come later in another
patchset) that requires to move the kernel mapping out of the linear
mapping to avoid to copy the kernel at a different physical address.
- have a single kernel that is not relocatable (and then that avoids the
performance penalty imposed by PIC kernel) for both sv39 and sv48.
The first patch implements this behaviour, the second patch introduces a
documentation that describes the virtual address space layout of the
64bit
kernel and the last patch is taken from my sv48 series where I simply
added
the dump of the modules/kernel/BPF mapping.
I removed the Reviewed-by on the first patch since it changed enough from
last time and deserves a second look.
Alexandre Ghiti (3):
riscv: Move kernel mapping outside of linear mapping
Documentation: riscv: Add documentation that describes the VM layout
riscv: Prepare ptdump for vm layout dynamic addresses
Documentation/riscv/index.rst | 1 +
Documentation/riscv/vm-layout.rst | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/riscv/boot/loader.lds.S | 3 +-
arch/riscv/include/asm/page.h | 18 ++++++-
arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h | 37 +++++++++----
arch/riscv/include/asm/set_memory.h | 1 +
arch/riscv/kernel/head.S | 3 +-
arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 6 +--
arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c | 3 ++
arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 3 +-
arch/riscv/mm/fault.c | 13 +++++
arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
arch/riscv/mm/kasan_init.c | 9 ++++
arch/riscv/mm/physaddr.c | 2 +-
arch/riscv/mm/ptdump.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++-----
15 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/riscv/vm-layout.rst
This generally looks good, but I'm getting a bunch of checkpatch
warnings and some conflicts, do you mind fixing those up (and including
your other kasan patch, as that's likely to conflict)?
I fixed a few checkpatch warnings and rebased on top of for-next but had
not conflicts.
I have just sent the v2.
Thanks. These (and the second patch of the one I just put on fixes) are
for-next things, so I'm not going to get a look at them tonight because I want
to make sure we don't have any more fixes outstanding.
