[PATCH v2] resource: limit request_free_mem_region based on arch_get_mappable_range

[Dan Williams]

D Scott Phillips wrote:
> On arm64 prior to commit 32697ff38287 ("arm64: vmemmap: Avoid base2 order
> of struct page size to dimension region"), the amdgpu driver could trip
> over the warning of:
> 
> `WARN_ON((start < VMEMMAP_START) || (end > VMEMMAP_END));`
> 
> in vmemmap_populate()[1]. After that commit, it becomes a translation fault
> and panic[2].
> 
> The cause is that the amdgpu driver allocates some unused space from
> iomem_resource and claims it as MEMORY_DEVICE_PRIVATE and
> devm_memremap_pages() it. An address above those backed by the arm64
> vmemmap is picked.
> 
> Limit request_free_mem_region() so that only addresses within the
> arch_get_mappable_range() can be chosen as device private addresses.

It seems odd that devm_request_free_mem_region() needs to be careful
about this restriction. The caller passes in the resource tree that is
the bounds of valid address ranges. This change assumes that the caller
wants to be restricted to vmemmap capable address ranges beyond the
restrictions it already requested in the passed in @base argument. That
restriction may be true with respect to request_mem_region(), but not
necessarily other users of get_free_mem_region() like
alloc_free_mem_region().

So, 2 questions / change request options:

1/ Preferred: Is there a possibility for the AMD driver to trim the
resource it is passing to be bound by arch_get_mappable_range()? For CXL
this is achieved by inserting CXL aperture windows into the resource
tree.

In the future what happens in the MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC case when the
memory address is picked by a hardware aperture on the device? It occurs
to me if that aperture is communicated to the device via some platform
mechanism (to honor arch_get_mappable_range() restrictions), then maybe
the same should be done here.

I have always cringed at the request_free_mem_region() implementation
playing fast and loose with the platform memory map. Maybe this episode
is a sign that these constraints need more formal handling in the
resource tree.

I.e. IORES_DESC_DEVICE_PRIVATE_MEMORY becomes a platform communicated
aperture rather than hoping that unused portions of iomem_resource can
be repurposed like this.


2/ If option 1/ proves too difficult, can you rework the consideration
of @base to be gated by @desc?

Something like:

if (desc == IORES_DESC_DEVICE_PRIVATE_MEMORY)
	base_start = max(base->start, arch_get_mappable_range().start);
	base_end = min(base->end, arch_get_mappable_range().end;
else
	base_start = base->start;
	base_end = base->end;

...to localize the consideration of arch_get_mappable_range() only to
the places it is absolutely required?