Re: CHANGE_PV_LIST_LOCK_TO_PHYS is not correct when !NUMA ?

From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 13:25:37 +0300
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 01:02:45PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 09/05/2020 19:50, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 07:16:27PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> On 09/05/2020 19:13, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 06:52:24PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>>> I tried this change:
> >>>> diff --git a/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c b/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c
> >>>> index 4deed86a76d1a..b834b7f0388b7 100644
> >>>> --- a/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c
> >>>> +++ b/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c
> >>>> _at__at_ -345,7 +345,7 _at__at_ pmap_pku_mask_bit(pmap_t pmap)
> >>>>  #define	NPV_LIST_LOCKS	MAXCPU
> >>>>
> >>>>  #define	PHYS_TO_PV_LIST_LOCK(pa)	\
> >>>> -			(&pv_list_locks[pa_index(pa) % NPV_LIST_LOCKS])
> >>>> +			(&pv_list_locks[((pa) >> PDRSHIFT) % NPV_LIST_LOCKS])
> >>>>  #endif
> >>>>
> >>>>  #define	CHANGE_PV_LIST_LOCK_TO_PHYS(lockp, pa)	do {	\
> >>>>
> >>>> It fixed the original problem, but I got a new panic.
> >>>> "DI already started" in pmap_remove() -> pmap_delayed_invl_start_u().
> >>>> I guess that !NUMA variant does not get much testing, so I'll probably just
> >>>> stick with the default.
> >>> Why didn't you just removed the KASSERT from pa_index ?
> >>
> >> Well, I thought it might be useful in the NUMA case.
> >> pa_index() definition is shared between both cases.
> > Might be define the macro two times, for NUMA/non-NUMA.  non-NUMA case
> > does not need the assert, because users take it mod NPV_LIST_LOCKS.
> 
> Yes, this works.
> Thank you!
> 
> diff --git a/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c b/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c
> index 4deed86a76d1a..8dd236acc8205 100644
> --- a/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c
> +++ b/sys/amd64/amd64/pmap.c
> _at__at_ -323,12 +323,12 _at__at_ pmap_pku_mask_bit(pmap_t pmap)
>  #endif
> 
>  #undef pa_index
> +#ifdef NUMA
>  #define	pa_index(pa)	({					\
>  	KASSERT((pa) <= vm_phys_segs[vm_phys_nsegs - 1].end,	\
>  	    ("address %lx beyond the last segment", (pa)));	\
>  	(pa) >> PDRSHIFT;					\
>  })
> -#ifdef NUMA
>  #define	pa_to_pmdp(pa)	(&pv_table[pa_index(pa)])
>  #define	pa_to_pvh(pa)	(&(pa_to_pmdp(pa)->pv_page))
>  #define	PHYS_TO_PV_LIST_LOCK(pa)	({			\
> _at__at_ -340,6 +340,7 _at__at_ pmap_pku_mask_bit(pmap_t pmap)
>  	_lock;							\
>  })
>  #else
> +#define	pa_index(pa)	((pa) >> PDRSHIFT)
>  #define	pa_to_pvh(pa)	(&pv_table[pa_index(pa)])
> 
>  #define	NPV_LIST_LOCKS	MAXCPU
Looks good to me.
Received on Sun May 10 2020 - 08:25:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:24 UTC