[PATCH v3] memblock,arm64: Expand the static memblock memory table

[Zhou Guanghui]

On 2022/6/13 14:38, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/13/22 11:33, Zhouguanghui wrote:
>> 在 2022/6/7 14:43, Anshuman Khandual 写道:
>>> Hello Zhou,
>>>
>>> On 5/27/22 14:48, Zhou Guanghui wrote:
>>>> In a system using HBM, a multi-bit ECC error occurs, and the BIOS
>>>> will mark the corresponding area (for example, 2 MB) as unusable.
>>>> When the system restarts next time, these areas are not reported
>>>> or reported as EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY. Both cases lead to an increase
>>>> in the number of memblocks, whereas EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY leads to a
>>>> larger number of memblocks.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if the EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY type is reported:
>>>> ...
>>>> memory[0x92]    [0x0000200834a00000-0x0000200835bfffff], 0x0000000001200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0
>>>> memory[0x93]    [0x0000200835c00000-0x0000200835dfffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x4
>>>> memory[0x94]    [0x0000200835e00000-0x00002008367fffff], 0x0000000000a00000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0
>>>> memory[0x95]    [0x0000200836800000-0x00002008369fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x4
>>>> memory[0x96]    [0x0000200836a00000-0x0000200837bfffff], 0x0000000001200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0
>>>> memory[0x97]    [0x0000200837c00000-0x0000200837dfffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x4
>>>> memory[0x98]    [0x0000200837e00000-0x000020087fffffff], 0x0000000048200000 bytes on node 7 flags: 0x0
>>>> memory[0x99]    [0x0000200880000000-0x0000200bcfffffff], 0x0000000350000000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0
>>>> memory[0x9a]    [0x0000200bd0000000-0x0000200bd01fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x4
>>>> memory[0x9b]    [0x0000200bd0200000-0x0000200bd07fffff], 0x0000000000600000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0
>>>> memory[0x9c]    [0x0000200bd0800000-0x0000200bd09fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x4
>>>> memory[0x9d]    [0x0000200bd0a00000-0x0000200fcfffffff], 0x00000003ff600000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0
>>>> memory[0x9e]    [0x0000200fd0000000-0x0000200fd01fffff], 0x0000000000200000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x4
>>>> memory[0x9f]    [0x0000200fd0200000-0x0000200fffffffff], 0x000000002fe00000 bytes on node 6 flags: 0x0
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Although this patch did not mention about a real world system requiring
>>> this support, as been reported on the thread, Ampere Altra does seem to
>>> get benefited. Regardless, it's always better to describe platform test
>>> scenarios in more detail.
>>>
>>
>> I encountered this scenario on Huawei Ascend ARM64 SoC.
> 
> Please do mention that in the commit message.
> 

I will add this in patch v4.

>>
>>>>
>>>> The EFI memory map is parsed to construct the memblock arrays before
>>>> the memblock arrays can be resized. As the result, memory regions
>>>> beyond INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS are lost.
>>>>
>>>> Allow overriding memblock.memory array size with architecture defined
>>>> INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS and make arm64 to set
>>>> INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS to 1024 when CONFIG_EFI is enabled.
>>>
>>> Right, but first this needs to mention that INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS
>>> (new macro) is being added to replace INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS, representing
>>> max memory regions in the memblock. Platform override comes afterwards.
>>>
>>
>> Add a paragraph before the description,like this?
>>
>> Add a new macro INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGTIONS to replace 
>> INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGTIONS to define the size of the static memblock.memory 
>> array.
> 
> Right.

I will add this paragraph in patch v4.

> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhou Guanghui <zhouguanghui1 at huawei.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt at linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h |  9 +++++++++
>>>>   mm/memblock.c                   | 14 +++++++++-----
>>>>   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
>>>> index 0af70d9abede..eda61c0389c4 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
>>>> @@ -364,6 +364,15 @@ void dump_mem_limit(void);
>>>>   # define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS	(INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + NR_CPUS + 1)
>>>>   #endif
>>>>   
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * memory regions which marked with flag MEMBLOCK_NOMAP may divide a continuous
>>>> + * memory block into multiple parts. As a result, the number of memory regions
>>>> + * is large.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> As mentioned in the previous version's thread,
>>>
>>> This comment needs be more specific about this increased static array size, being
>>> applicable ONLY for MEMBLOCK_NOMAP regions on EFI system with EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY
>>> tagging/flag support.
>>>
>>
>> EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY is only one type of the MEMBLOCK_NOMAP region, as 
>> shown in the is_usable_memory function. However, However, I currently 
>> have too many memblocks due to this flag.
> 
> Okay, but adding EFI_UNUSABLE_MEMORY context in that comment will be helpful.
> 

I'll add it to the comment in patch v4.

>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_EFI
>>>> +#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS	1024
>>>
>>> Although 1024 seems adequate as compared to 128 memory regions in the memblock to
>>> handle such error scenarios, but a co-relation with INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS would
>>> be preferred similar to when INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS gets overridden. This
>>> avoid a precedence when random numbers could get assigned in other archs later on.
>>>
>>> $git grep INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS arch/
>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h:# define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + NR_CPUS + 1)
>>> arch/loongarch/include/asm/sparsemem.h:#define INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS   (INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS + NR_CPUS)
>>>
>>> Something like
>>>
>>> #define INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS	(INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS * 8)
>>>
>>
>> I don't think this is necessary because INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS is not 
>> configurable. The newly added INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS macro is 
>> customized for each platform.
> 
> Even an existing macro INIT_MEMBLOCK_RESERVED_REGIONS still depends on
> INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS (arm64, loongarch) ? The point being, although
> INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS is not configurable, it still does provide enough
> base value, as compared to defining a random number in platforms which
> will override INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGIONS. What is your concern in
> making it dependent on INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGIONS ?
> 

In my opinion, the purpose of adding INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGTIONS is to specify a larger size on different platforms. In the future, the base value of INIT_MEMBLOCK_REGTIONS is adjusted to a larger value (for example, 256). On the arm64 platform, it is not necessary to adjust (256 * 8) INIT_MEMBLOCK_MEMORY_REGTIONS.

Thanks!