Re: [PATCH 1/1] lib/ioremap.c: avoid endless loop under ioremapping page unaligned ranges

[zijun_hu]

On 09/23/2016 08:42 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> no, it don't work for many special case
>>>> for example, provided  PMD_SIZE=2M
>>>> mapping [0x1f8800, 0x208800) virtual range will be split to two ranges
>>>> [0x1f8800, 0x200000) and [0x200000,0x208800) and map them separately
>>>> the first range will cause dead loop
>>>
>>> I am not sure I see your point. How can we deadlock if _both_ addresses
>>> get aligned to the page boundary and how does PMD_SIZE make any
>>> difference.
>>>
>> i will take a example to illustrate my considerations
>> provided PUD_SIZE == 1G, PMD_SIZE == 2M, PAGE_SIZE == 4K
>> it is used by arm64 normally
>>
>> we want to map virtual range [0xffffffff_ffc08800, 0xffffffff_fffff800) by
>> ioremap_page_range(),ioremap_pmd_range() is called to map the range
>> finally, ioremap_pmd_range() will call
>> ioremap_pte_range(pmd, 0xffffffff_ffc08800, 0xffffffff_fffe0000) and
>> ioremap_pte_range(pmd, 0xffffffff_fffe0000, 0xffffffff fffff800) separately
> 
> but those ranges are not aligned and it ioremap_page_range fix them up
> to _be_ aligned then there is no problem, right? So either I am missing
> something or we are talking past each other.
> 
my complementary considerations are show below

why not to round up the range start boundary to page aligned?
1, it don't remain consistent with the original logic
   take map [0x1800, 0x4800) as example
   the original logic map range [0x1000, 0x2000), but rounding up start boundary
   don't mapping the range [0x1000, 0x2000)
2, the rounding up start boundary maybe cause overflow, consider start boundary =
   0xffffffff_fffff800