ioremap vs remap_pfn_range, VMSPLIT, etc

[Mason]

On 09/01/2015 14:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 01:59:10PM +0100, Mason wrote:
>
>> Yesterday, I used /dev/mem to mmap 2 GB and (to my surprise) it worked.
>> Specifically, I opened /dev/mem O_RDWR | O_SYNC
>> then called
>>   mmap(NULL, 1U<<31, PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0x80000000);
> 
> So you asked to map 2GB starting at 2GB physical.
> 
>> And mmap returned a valid pointer.
> 
> And that mapping would have been created to map physical addresses
> 0x80000000-0xffffffff inclusive.
> 
>> I was expecting it to fail.
>>
>> - the kernel is configured with VMSPLIT_3G (3G/1G user/kernel)
> 
> This has no bearing on the above.

I don't understand why.

mmap allocates virtual addresses in the user-space process, yes?
So if I had VMSPLIT_2G, user-space processes would be limited
to 2G virtual addresses, and could not create a single 2G map
on top of its stack and text space. Or am I missing something?

>> - the kernel manages 256 MB RAM
>> - there is roughly 750 MB of VMALLOC space, no highmem
> 
> vmalloc has no bearing on the above, mmap() doesn't allocate anything
> into vmalloc space.

This means remap_pfn_range doesn't "put" anything in the kernel's
virtual address space.

>> If I requested the same mapping *within the kernel* using ioremap,
>> would that fail because of limited VMALLOC space?
> 
> Correct.

OK.

>> Moving to arch-specific questions (namely ARM Cortex-A9).
>> If I understand correctly (which is very possibly NOT the case)
>> the CPU has two registers pointing to page tables, one for
>> the current process, one for the kernel. And the CPU automatically
>> picks the correct one, based on the active context?
>> It would seem possible to have a full 4G for process, and a full 4G
>> for the kernel, using that method, no? (Like Ingo's old 4G/4G split).
>> Without the performance overhead of fiddling with the page tables.
>> What am I missing?
> 
> It's possible to use both, but the CPU selects the page table register
> according to the virtual address.  So it's not possible to have 4G for
> both.  There's only a restricted set of options:  2G / 2G, where the
> bottom 2G of virtual space uses TTBR0 and the upper 2G uses TTBR1.
> 1G / 3G (1G for TTBR0, 3G for TTBR1).
> 
> We don't use it because most people run with 3G for userspace, which
> isn't supported in hardware.

I see. Thanks for spelling it out.

Regards.