Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mm/hugetlb: Add support for 1G huge pages

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Anshuman Khandual <khandual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 04/17/2017 10:44 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> POWER9 supports hugepages of size 2M and 1G in radix MMU mode. This patch
>> enables the usage of 1G page size for hugetlbfs. This also update the helper
>> such we can do 1G page allocation at runtime.
>> 
>> Since we can do this only when radix translation mode is enabled, we can't use
>> the generic gigantic_page_supported helper. Hence provide a way for architecture
>> to override gigantic_page_supported helper.
>> 
>> We still don't enable 1G page size on DD1 version. This is to avoid doing
>> workaround mentioned in commit: 6d3a0379ebdc8 (powerpc/mm: Add
>> radix__tlb_flush_pte_p9_dd1()
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>>  arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c                |  7 +++++--
>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype       |  1 +
>>  mm/hugetlb.c                                 |  4 ++++
>>  4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h
>> index 6666cd366596..86f27cc8ec61 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hugetlb.h
>> @@ -50,4 +50,17 @@ static inline pte_t arch_make_huge_pte(pte_t entry, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>  	else
>>  		return entry;
>>  }
>> +
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE) &&				\
>> +	((defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION) && defined(CONFIG_COMPACTION)) || \
>> +	 defined(CONFIG_CMA))
>> +#define gigantic_page_supported gigantic_page_supported
>
> As I have mentioned in later part of the reply, it does not really
> make sense to have both arch call back as well as generic config
> option checking to decide on whether a feature is enabled or not.
>
>> +static inline bool gigantic_page_supported(void)
>> +{
>> +	if (radix_enabled())
>> +		return true;
>> +	return false;
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  #endif
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>> index a4f33de4008e..80f6d2ed551a 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>> @@ -763,8 +763,11 @@ static int __init add_huge_page_size(unsigned long long size)
>>  	 * Hash: 16M and 16G
>>  	 */
>>  	if (radix_enabled()) {
>> -		if (mmu_psize != MMU_PAGE_2M)
>> -			return -EINVAL;
>> +		if (mmu_psize != MMU_PAGE_2M) {
>> +			if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_POWER9_DD1) ||
>> +			    (mmu_psize != MMU_PAGE_1G))
>> +				return -EINVAL;
>> +		}
>>  	} else {
>>  		if (mmu_psize != MMU_PAGE_16M && mmu_psize != MMU_PAGE_16G)
>>  			return -EINVAL;
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
>> index ef4c4b8fc547..f4ba4bf0d762 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
>> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ config PPC_STD_MMU_64
>>  config PPC_RADIX_MMU
>>  	bool "Radix MMU Support"
>>  	depends on PPC_BOOK3S_64
>> +	select ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
>>  	default y
>>  	help
>
> As we are already checking for radix_enabled() test inside function
> gigantic_page_supported(), do we still need to conditionally enable
> this on Radix based platforms only ?
>
>
>>  	  Enable support for the Power ISA 3.0 Radix style MMU. Currently this
>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> index 3d0aab9ee80d..2c090189f314 100644
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -1158,7 +1158,11 @@ static int alloc_fresh_gigantic_page(struct hstate *h,
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +#ifndef gigantic_page_supported
>>  static inline bool gigantic_page_supported(void) { return true; }
>> +#define gigantic_page_supported gigantic_page_supported
>> +#endif
>
> As seen above, now that arch's decision to support this feature is not
> based solely on ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE config option but also on the
> availability of platform features like radix, is it a good time to have
> an arch call back deciding on gigantic_page_supported() test instead of
> just checking presence of config options like 
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE) && \
> 	((defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION) && defined(CONFIG_COMPACTION)) || \
> 	defined(CONFIG_CMA))
>
> We should not have both as proposed. I mean CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
> should not be enabled unless we have MEMORY_ISOLATION && COMPACTION && CMA
> and once enabled we should have arch_gigantic_page_supported() deciding for
> gigantic_page_supported().

I will update the patch. I guess I can also fixup other arch that enable
GIGANTIC_PAGE accordingly.

-aneesh