Messages in this thread Patches in this message | | | From | "Strashko, Grygorii" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/3] memblock, nobootmem: Add memblock_virt_alloc_low() | Date | Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:16:26 +0000 |
| |
Hi all,
Sorry, for the invalid mail & patch format - have no way to send it properly now.
Suppose there is another way to fix this issue (more generic) - Correct memblock_virt_allocX() API to limit allocations below memblock.current_limit (patch attached).
Then the code behavior will become more similar to _alloc_memory_core_early.
Not tested.
Best regards, - grygorii
________________________________________ From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [konrad.wilk@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:56 PM To: Shilimkar, Santosh Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux; Yinghai Lu; Kevin Hilman; Olof Johansson; Linus Torvalds; Andrew Morton; Ingo Molnar; H. Peter Anvin; Dave Hansen; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Strashko, Grygorii; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock, nobootmem: Add memblock_virt_alloc_low()
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:36:28PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > + Gryagorii, > On Tuesday 28 January 2014 01:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:23:02PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > >> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 12:12 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >>> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h > >>> =================================================================== > >>> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/bootmem.h > >>> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h > >>> @@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir > >>> NUMA_NO_NODE); > >>> } > >>> > >>> +/* Take arch's ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT at first*/ > >>> +#include <asm/processor.h> > >>> + > >>> #ifndef ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT > >>> #define ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT 0xffffffffUL > >>> #endif > >> > >> This won't help mostly since the ARM 32 arch don't set ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT. > >> Sorry i couldn't respond to the thread earlier because of travel and > >> don't have access to my board to try out the patches. > > > > Let's think about this for a moment, shall we... > > > > What does memblock_alloc_virt*() return? It returns a virtual address. > > > > How is that virtual address obtained? ptr = phys_to_virt(alloc); > > > > What is the valid address range for passing into phys_to_virt() ? Only > > lowmem addresses. > > > > Hence, having ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT set to 4GB-1 by default seems to be > > completely rediculous - and presumably this also fails on x86_32 if it > > returns memory up at 4GB. > > > > So... yes, I think reverting the arch/arm part of this patch is the right > > solution, whether the rest of it should be reverted is something I can't > > comment on. > > > Grygorri mentioned an alternate to update the memblock_find_in_range_node() so > that it takes into account the limit.
This patch breaks also Xen and 32-bit guests (see http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-01/msg02476.html)
Reverting it fixes it.
> > Regards, > Santosh From ee31afb9c5c0e78819ce624e3a930d31b97527cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: grygoriis <grygorii.strashko@globallogic.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:59:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] mm/memblock: fix upper boundary of allocating region
Correct memblock_virt_allocX() API to limit allocations below memblock.current_limit.
Signed-off-by: grygoriis <grygorii.strashko@globallogic.com> --- mm/memblock.c | 3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 87d21a6..e93d669 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -1077,6 +1077,9 @@ static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_internal( if (!align) align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES; + if (max_addr > memblock.current_limit) + max_addr = memblock.current_limit; + again: alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, min_addr, max_addr, nid); -- 1.7.4.1
| |