Re: CVS commit: src/sys/uvm

[yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost (YAMAMOTO Takashi)]

hi,

> Could you ack this discussion?

sorry for dropping a ball.

> 
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:19:46AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:32:39PM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > [ adding cc: tech-kern@ ]
>> > 
>> > hi,
>> > 
>> > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:26:39PM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> > >> 
>> > >> On Nov 24, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> > >> 
>> > >> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 05:44:21AM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > >> >> hi,
>> > >> >> 
>> > >> >>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 04:18:25AM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > >> >>>> hi,
>> > >> >>>> 
>> > >> >>>>> Hi, thanks for review.
>> > >> >>>>> 
>> > >> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:58:04AM +0000, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> > >> >>>>>> hi,
>> > >> >>>>>> 
>> > >> >>>>>> - what's VM_PHYSSEG_OP_PG?
>> > >> >>>>> 
>> > >> >>>>> It's to lookup vm_physseg by "struct vm_page *", relying on that
>> > >> >>>>> "struct vm_page *[]" is allocated linearly.  It'll be used to 
>> > >> >>>>> remove
>> > >> >>>>> vm_page::phys_addr as we talked some time ago.
>> > >> >>>> 
>> > >> >>>> i'm not sure if commiting this unused uncommented code now helps 
>> > >> >>>> it.
>> > >> >>>> some try-and-benchmark cycles might be necessary given that
>> > >> >>>> vm_page <-> paddr conversion could be performace critical.
>> > >> >>> 
>> > >> >>> If you really care performance, we can directly pass "struct vm_page
>> > >> >>> *" to pmap_enter().
>> > >> >>> 
>> > >> >>> We're doing "struct vm_page *" -> "paddr_t" just before 
>> > >> >>> pmap_enter(),
>> > >> >>> then doing "paddr_t" -> "vm_physseg" reverse lookup again in
>> > >> >>> pmap_enter() to check if a given PA is managed.  What is really
>> > >> >>> needed here is, to lookup "struct vm_page *" -> "vm_physseg" once
>> > >> >>> and you'll know both paddr_t and managed or not.
>> > >> >> 
>> > >> >> i agree that the current code is not ideal in that respect.
>> > >> >> otoh, i'm not sure if passing vm_physseg around is a good idea.
>> > >> > 
>> > >> > It's great you share the interest.
>> > >> > 
>> > >> > I chose vm_physseg, because it was there.  I'm open to alternatives,
>> > >> > but I don't think you have many options...
>> > >> 
>> > >> Passing vm_page * doesn't work if the page isn't managed since there
>> > >> won't be a vm_page for the paddr_t.
>> > >> 
>> > >> Now passing both paddr_t and vm_page * would work and if the pointer
>> > >> to the vm_page, it would be an unmanaged mapping.  This also gives the
>> > >> access to mdpg without another lookup.
>> > > 
>> > > What if XIP'ed md(4), where physical pages are in .data (or .rodata)?
>> > > 
>> > > And don't forget that you're the one who first pointed out that
>> > > allocating vm_pages for XIP is a pure waste of memory. ;)
>> > 
>> > i guess matt meant "if the pointer to the vm_page is NULL,".
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > I'm allocating vm_pages, only because of phys_addr and loan_count.
>> > > I believe vm_pages is unnecessary for read-only XIP segments.
>> > > Because they're read-only, and stateless.
>> > > 
>> > > I've already concluded that the current "managed or not" model
>> > > doesn't work for XIP.  I'm pretty sure that my vm_physseg + off_t
>> > > model can explain everything.  I'm rather waiting for a counter
>> > > example how vm_physseg doesn't work...
>> > 
>> > i guess your suggestion is too vague.
>> > where do you want to use vm_physseg * + off_t instead of vm_page * ?
>> > getpages, pmap_enter, and?  how their function prototypes would be?
>> 
>> The basic idea is straightforward; always allocate vm_physseg for
>> memories/devices.  If a vm_physseg is used as general purpose
>> memory, you allocate vm_page[] (as vm_physseg::pgs).  If it's
>> potentially mapped as cached, you allocate pvh (as vm_physseg:pvh).

can you provide function prototypes?

>> 
>> Keep vm_physseg * + off_t array on stack.  If UVM objects uses
>> vm_page (e.g. vnode), its pager looks up vm_page -> vm_physseg *
>> + off_t *once* and cache it on stack.

do you mean something like this?
        struct {
                vm_physseg *hoge;
                off_t fuga;
        } foo [16];

YAMAMOTO Takashi

>> 
>> > any valid paddr_t value will belong to exactly one vm_phsseg?
>> 
>> That's the idea.  This would clarify mem(4) backend too.
>> 
>> Note that allocating vm_physseg for device segments is cheap.