[PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: split off early mapping code from early_fixmap_init()

Will Deacon will.deacon at arm.com
Tue Dec 8 05:51:39 PST 2015


On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 8 December 2015 at 13:40, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 12:18:40PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> Apologies that it's taken me so long to get around to this...
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:23:14PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> > This splits off and generalises the population of the statically
> >> > allocated fixmap page tables so that we may reuse it later for
> >> > the linear mapping once we move the kernel text mapping out of it.
> >> >
> >> > This also involves taking into account that table entries at any of
> >> > the levels we are populating may have been populated already, since
> >> > the fixmap mapping might not be disjoint up to the pgd level anymore
> >> > from other early mappings.
> >>
> >> As a heads-up, for avoiding TLB conflicts, I'm currently working on
> >> alternative way of creating the kernel page tables which will definitely
> >> conflict here, and may or may not supercede this approach.
> >
> > Given that the Christmas break is around the corner and your TLB series
> > is probably going to take some time to get right, I suggest we persevere
> > with Ard's current patch series for 4.5 and merge the TLB conflict solution
> > for 4.6. I don't want us to end up in a situation where this is needlessly
> > blocked on something that isn't quite ready.
> >
> > Any objections? If not, Ard -- can you post a new version of this, please?
> >
> 
> Happy to post a new version, with the following remarks
> - my current private tree has evolved in the mean time, and I am now
> putting the kernel image at the base of the vmalloc region (and the
> module region right before)
> - I think Mark's changes would allow me to deobfuscate the VA bias
> that redirects __va() translations into the kernel VA space rather
> than the linear mapping

I'll leave that up to you. I'm just trying to avoid you growing a dependency
on something that's unlikely to make it for 4.5. If Mark separates out the
parts you need, perhaps that offers us some middle ground.

Will



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list