lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRE: [External] Re: [PATCH 2/3] include/linux/gfp.h: use unsigned int in gfp_zone
Date
Dear Matthew,

I will try to explain them in depth. Correct me if anything wrong.
>
> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 04:17:06PM +0000, Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> > Upload my current patch and testing platform info for reference. This patch
> has been tested
> > on a two sockets platform.
>
> Thank you!
My pleasure.

> > It works, but some drivers or subsystem shall be modified to fit
> > these new type __GFP flags.
> > They use these flags directly to realize bit manipulations like this
> > below.
> >
> > eg.
> > swiotlb-xen.c (drivers\xen): flags &= ~(__GFP_DMA | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> > extent_io.c (fs\btrfs): mask &= ~(__GFP_DMA32|__GFP_HIGHMEM);
> >
> > Because of these flags have been encoded within this patch, the
> > above operations can cause problem.
>
> I don't think this actually causes problems. At least, no additional
> problems. These users will successfully clear __GFP_DMA and
> __GFP_HIGHMEM
> no matter what values GFP_DMA and GFP_HIGHMEM have; the only problem
> will be if someone calls them with a zone type they're not expecting (eg DMA32
> for the first one or DMA for the second; or MOVABLE for either of them).
> The thing is, they're already buggy in those circumstances.

I hope it couldn't cause problem, but based on my analyzation it has the potential to go wrong if users still use the flags as usual, which are __GFP_DMA, __GFP_DMA32 and __GFP_HIGHMEM.
Let me take an example with my testing platform, these logics are much abstract, an example will be helpful.

There is a two sockets X86_64 server, No HIGHMEM and it has 16 + 16GB memories.
Its zone types shall be like this below,

ZONE_DMA 0 0b0000
ZONE_DMA32 1 0b0001
ZONE_NORMAL 2 0b0010
(OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM) 2 0b0010
ZONE_MOVABLE 3 0b0011
ZONE_DEVICE 4 0b0100 (virtual zone)
__MAX_NR_ZONES 5

__GFP_DMA = ZONE_DMA ^ ZONE_NORMAL= 0b0010
__GFP_DMA32 = ZONE_DMA32 ^ ZONE_NORMAL= 0b0011
__GFP_HIGHMEM = OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM ^ ZONE_NORMAL = 0b0000
__GFP_MOVABLE = ZONE_MOVABLE ^ ZONE_NORMAL | ___GFP_MOVABLE = 0b1001

Eg.
If a driver uses flags like this below,
Step 1:
gfp_mask | __GFP_DMA32;
(0b 0000 | 0b 0011 = 0b 0011)
gfp_mask's low four bits shall equal to 0011, assuming no __GFP_MOVABLE

Step 2:
gfp_mask & ~__GFP_DMA;
(0b 0011 & ~0b0010 = 0b0001)
gfp_mask's low four bits shall equal to 0001 now, then when it enter gfp_zone(),

return ((__force int)flags & ___GFP_ZONE_MASK) ^ ZONE_NORMAL;
(0b0001 ^ 0b0010 = 0b0011)
You know 0011 means that ZONE_MOVABLE will be returned.
In this case, error can be found, because gfp_mask needs to get ZONE_DMA32 originally.
But with existing GFP_ZONE_TABLE/BAD, it is correct. Because the bits are way of 0x1, 0x2, 0x4, 0x8

I just want to show a case of failure, please don't blame me that use case was invented.
Again, your idea is great in my eyes, which has much advantages than ZONE_TABLE/BAD.
But if we use this idea, that means other subsystem or driver shall not use the flags as existing way.
Of course, this limitation only exists in low 3 bits of gfp_t. The remaining high bits can be used as usual.

This is my opinion, maybe it is not accurate, but I really worry about it.

> > */
> > -#define __GFP_DMA ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_DMA)
> > -#define __GFP_HIGHMEM ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_HIGHMEM)
> > -#define __GFP_DMA32 ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_DMA32)
> > +#define __GFP_DMA ((__force gfp_t)OPT_ZONE_DMA ^
> ZONE_NORMAL)
> > +#define __GFP_HIGHMEM ((__force gfp_t)ZONE_MOVABLE ^
> ZONE_NORMAL)
> > +#define __GFP_DMA32 ((__force gfp_t)OPT_ZONE_DMA32 ^
> ZONE_NORMAL)
> > #define __GFP_MOVABLE ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_MOVABLE) /*
> ZONE_MOVABLE allowed */
> [...]
> > static inline enum zone_type gfp_zone(gfp_t flags)
> > {
> > enum zone_type z;
> > - int bit = (__force int) (flags & GFP_ZONEMASK);
> > + z = ((__force unsigned int)flags & ___GFP_ZONE_MASK) ^
> ZONE_NORMAL;
> >
> > - z = (GFP_ZONE_TABLE >> (bit * GFP_ZONES_SHIFT)) &
> > - ((1 << GFP_ZONES_SHIFT) - 1);
> > - VM_BUG_ON((GFP_ZONE_BAD >> bit) & 1);
> > + if (z > OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM) {
> > + z = OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM +
> > + !!((__force unsigned int)flags & ___GFP_MOVABLE);
> > + }
> > return z;
> > }
>
> How about:
>
> +#define __GFP_HIGHMEM ((__force gfp_t)OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM ^
> ZONE_NORMAL)
> -#define __GFP_MOVABLE ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_MOVABLE) /*
> ZONE_MOVABLE allowed */
> +#define __GFP_MOVABLE ((__force gfp_t)ZONE_MOVABLE ^
> ZONE_NORMAL | \
> + ___GFP_MOVABLE)
>
> Then I think you can just make it:
>
> static inline enum zone_type gfp_zone(gfp_t flags)
> {
> return ((__force int)flags & ___GFP_ZONE_MASK) ^ ZONE_NORMAL;
> }
Sorry, I think it has risk in this way, let me introduce a failure case for example.

Now suppose that, there is a flag should represent DMA flag with movable.
It should be like this below,
__GFP_DMA | __GFP_MOVABLE
(0b 0010 | 0b 1001 = 0b 1011)
Normally, gfp_zone shall return ZONE_DMA but with MOVABLE policy, right?
But with your code, gfp_zone will return ZONE_DMA32 with MOVABLE policy.
(0b 1011 ^ 0b 0010 = 1001)

You can find that something wrong happens, so that is why I make gfp_zone more complicated than yours.

> > @@ -370,42 +368,15 @@ static inline bool gfpflags_allow_blocking(const
> gfp_t gfp_flags)
> > #error GFP_ZONES_SHIFT too large to create GFP_ZONE_TABLE integer
> > #endif
>
> You should be able to delete GFP_ZONES_SHIFT too.
Yes, you are right.

Sincerely,
Huaisheng Ye | 叶怀胜
Linux kernel | Lenovo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-07 19:17    [W:0.090 / U:6.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site