[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Shrink the size of tlb handler and fix vmalloc()

To:, Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: Shrink the size of tlb handler and fix vmalloc()
From: Wu Fei <>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:32:02 +0800
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=by8DackXTq6qUg8fh4aBGS8T7nzGF9vn2QxcMM7c1J0=; b=SgvZP8T3jq44GIvDkkJkBohSJWZE6InU+dOhojzdIh1zUX5/KFzV7ZpQeUqXv7hiNG bWACWRj4+R1OezZA8DbmxyCrek5+S4RRl3qzNXFfjPHvuiHYFkScK/DQZbeyZPSTtm8t Sc20Ao+O/9sUg+xjgAL7rcMmJcK2SEk/n/Bvc=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=NkBommUmKREGVPZSMgdeUzttGpFj9LxIKdAM1MVFC+cV4qJTkCJEvthz+qxbTMvAiK QLmWhIkUOOeGCk2/neOrswk2ReKDisuv25h5S88F9ytv5x2wmyhCuTAD0VjDKrlNyfRv mkKBmtpxntKfa2OZSfc91n8tVC/ElfRRV6vbw=
In-reply-to: <20090903142753.GA6482@desktop>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <20090903142753.GA6482@desktop>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:27:53PM +0800, Wu Fei wrote:
> This patch tries to shrink the size of the 64bit tlb handler and also fix
> an vmalloc bug at the same time.
Forgot to say, it's only tested on 2.6.27, not the master, I can't get
the environment to run the latest kernel currently.


> By combining the swapper_pg_dir and module_pg_dir, several checks in tlb
> handler, particularly build_get_pgd_vmalloc64, are not necessary. The reason
> they can be combined is that, the effective virtual address of vmalloc 
> returned
> is at the bottom, and of module_alloc returned is at the top.
> In the normal case of 4KB page size:
>   VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END  0xc0000000 00000000 - 0xc0000100 00000000
>   MODULE_START,  MODULE_END   0xffffffff c0000000 - 0xffffffff +xxxxxxx
> Change it to:
>   VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END  0xc0000000 00000000 - 0xc00000ff 00000000
>   MODULE_START,  MODULE_END   0xffffffff c0000000 - 0xffffffff +xxxxxxx
> We use the least 40 bits to traverse the page table, the change makes it still
> one-to-one mapping without more checking. "+" is in the range of [c,d,e,f], 
> so there even are big holes bewteen them.
> With this patch, the tlb refill handler only contains about 28 instructions,
> instead of the original 38.
> And this patch also fix a bug in vmalloc, which happens when its returned
> address is not covered by the first pgd. e.g. if we do two vmallocs, the first
> returned address is 0xc0000000 00000000, and the 2nd is 0xc0000000 40000000,
>   vmalloc -> __vmalloc_node -> __vmalloc_area_node -> __vmalloc_area_node
>   -> map_vm_area -> pgd_offset_k
> pgd_offset_k doesn't use the address to index the pgd, just return the first 
> one:
>   #define pgd_offset_k(address) \ 
>         ((address) >= MODULE_START ? module_pg_dir : pgd_offset(&init_mm, 
> 0UL))     
> This is wrong, then the 2 addresses are mapped to the same pte. This bug 
> doesn't
> happen because even in the 4KB page case, one pgd can cover 1GB size, and it 
> looks
> like the system won't vmalloc so much area.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>