Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/26] KVM: arm64: Introduce a Hyp buddy page allocator

[Quentin Perret]

On Thursday 04 Feb 2021 at 17:48:49 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 02:52:52PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 Feb 2021 at 14:31:08 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 06:33:30PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 02 Feb 2021 at 18:13:08 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:15:10PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > > > + *   __find_buddy(pool, page 0, order 0) => page 1
> > > > > > + *   __find_buddy(pool, page 0, order 1) => page 2
> > > > > > + *   __find_buddy(pool, page 1, order 0) => page 0
> > > > > > + *   __find_buddy(pool, page 2, order 0) => page 3
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +static struct hyp_page *__find_buddy(struct hyp_pool *pool, struct hyp_page *p,
> > > > > > +				     unsigned int order)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	phys_addr_t addr = hyp_page_to_phys(p);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	addr ^= (PAGE_SIZE << order);
> > > > > > +	if (addr < pool->range_start || addr >= pool->range_end)
> > > > > > +		return NULL;
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are these range checks only needed because the pool isn't required to be
> > > > > an exact power-of-2 pages in size? If so, maybe it would be more
> > > > > straightforward to limit the max order on a per-pool basis depending upon
> > > > > its size?
> > > > 
> > > > More importantly, it is because pages outside of the pool are not
> > > > guaranteed to be covered by the hyp_vmemmap, so I really need to make
> > > > sure I don't dereference them.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't having a per-pool max order help with that?
> > 
> > The issue is, I have no alignment guarantees for the pools, so I may end
> > up with max_order = 0 ...
> 
> Yeah, so you would still need the range tracking,

Hmm actually I don't think I would, but that would essentially mean the
'buddy' allocator is now turned into a free list of single pages
(because we cannot create pages of order 1).

> but it would at least help
> to reduce HYP_MAX_ORDER failed searches each time. Still, we can always do
> that later.

Sorry but I am not following. In which case do we have HYP_MAX_ORDER
failed searches?

Thanks,
Quentin