Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1579263

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] x86, mpx: update MPX to grok larger bounds tables

From Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] x86, mpx: update MPX to grok larger bounds tables
Date 2017-02-12 20:10 +0100
Message-ID <ta7H3-1I4-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <t6cvD-4hs-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6cvD-4hs-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Dave Hansen wrote:
>  /*
> - * The upper 28 bits [47:20] of the virtual address in 64-bit
> - * are used to index into bounds directory (BD).
> + * The uppermost bits [56:20] of the virtual address in 64-bit
> + * are used to index into bounds directory (BD).  On processors
> + * with support for smaller virtual address space size, the "56"
> + * is obviously smaller.

 ... space size, the upper limit is adjusted accordingly.

Or something like that,

> +/*
> + * Note: size of tables on 64-bit is not constant, so we have no
> + * fixed definition for MPX_BD_NR_ENTRIES_64.
> + *
> + * The 5-Level Paging Whitepaper says:  "A bound directory
> + * comprises 2^(28+MAWA) 64-bit entries."  Since MAWA=0 in
> + * legacy mode:
> + */
> +#define MPX_BD_LEGACY_NR_ENTRIES_64	(1UL<<28)

(1UL << 28) please

>  
> +static inline int mpx_bd_size_shift(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	return mm->context.mpx_bd_shift;
> +}

Do we really need that helper?

>  static inline unsigned long mpx_bd_size_bytes(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  {
> -	if (is_64bit_mm(mm))
> -		return MPX_BD_SIZE_BYTES_64;
> -	else
> +	if (!is_64bit_mm(mm))
>  		return MPX_BD_SIZE_BYTES_32;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The bounds directory grows with the address space size.
> +	 * The "legacy" shift is 0.
> +	 */
> +	return MPX_BD_BASE_SIZE_BYTES_64 << mpx_bd_shift_shift(mm);

shift_shift. I wonder how that compiles...

Looks good otherwise.

Thanks,

	tglx

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[RFC][PATCH 2/7] x86, mpx: update MPX to grok larger bounds tables Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-02 00:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] x86, mpx: update MPX to grok larger bounds  tables Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-02-12 20:10 +0100

csiph-web