On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 22:40 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Currently, if the kernel is running on a POWER9 processor under a
> hypervisor, it will try to use the radix MMU even though it doesn't
> have the necessary code to use radix under a hypervisor (it doesn't
> negotiate use of radix, and it doesn't do the H_REGISTER_PROC_TBL
> hcall). The result is that the guest kernel will crash when it tries
> to turn on the MMU, because it will still actually be using the HPT
> MMU, but it won't have set up any SLB or HPT entries. It does this
> because the only thing that the kernel looks at in deciding to use
> radix, on any platform, is the ibm,pa-features property on the cpu
> device nodes.
>
> This fixes it by looking for the /chosen/ibm,architecture-vec-5
> property, and if it exists, clearing the radix MMU feature bit.
> We do this before we decide whether to initialize for radix or HPT.
> This property is created by the hypervisor as a result of the guest
> calling the ibm,client-architecture-support method to indicate
> its capabilities, so it only exists on systems with a hypervisor.
> The reason for using this property is that in future, when we
> have support for using radix under a hypervisor, we will need
> to check this property to see whether the hypervisor agreed to
> us using radix.
>
> Fixes: 17a3dd2f5fc7 ("powerpc/mm/radix: Use firmware feature to
> enable Radix MMU")
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v4.7+
> Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <pau...@ozlabs.org>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
> index a000c35..098531d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/init_64.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@
> #include <linux/memblock.h>
> #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> +#include <linux/libfdt.h>
>
> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
> #include <asm/page.h>
> @@ -344,6 +346,28 @@ static int __init parse_disable_radix(char *p)
> }
> early_param("disable_radix", parse_disable_radix);
>
> +/*
> + * If we're running under a hypervisor, we currently can't do radix
> + * since we don't have the code to do the H_REGISTER_PROC_TBL hcall.
> + * We tell that we're running under a hypervisor by looking for the
> + * /chosen/ibm,architecture-vec-5 property.
> + */
> +static void early_check_vec5(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long root, chosen;
> + int size;
> + const u8 *vec5;
> +
> + root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
> + chosen = of_get_flat_dt_subnode_by_name(root, "chosen");
> + if (chosen == -FDT_ERR_NOTFOUND)
> + return;
> + vec5 = of_get_flat_dt_prop(chosen, "ibm,architecture-vec-5",
> &size);
> + if (!vec5)
> + return;
> + cur_cpu_spec->mmu_features &= ~MMU_FTR_TYPE_RADIX;
> +}
> +
Given that currently radix guest support doesn't exist upstream, it's
sufficient to check for the existence of the vec5 node to determine
that we are a guest and thus can't run radix.
Is it worth checking the specific radix feature bit of the vec5 node so
that this code is still correct for determining the lack of radix
support by the host platform once guest radix kernels are (in the
future) supported?
> void __init mmu_early_init_devtree(void)
> {
> /* Disable radix mode based on kernel command line. */
> @@ -351,6 +375,9 @@ void __init mmu_early_init_devtree(void)
> cur_cpu_spec->mmu_features &= ~MMU_FTR_TYPE_RADIX;
>
> if (early_radix_enabled())
> + early_check_vec5();
> +
> + if (early_radix_enabled())
> radix__early_init_devtree();
> else
> hash__early_init_devtree();
