Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:47:06 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC] arm64: mm: update max_pfn after memory hotplug | From | Florian Fainelli <> |
| |
On 9/23/2021 3:54 PM, Chris Goldsworthy wrote: > From: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com> > > After new memory blocks have been hotplugged, max_pfn and max_low_pfn > needs updating to reflect on new PFNs being hot added to system. > > Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com> > Signed-off-by: Chris Goldsworthy <quic_cgoldswo@quicinc.com> > --- > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > index cfd9deb..fd85b51 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c > @@ -1499,6 +1499,11 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, > if (ret) > __remove_pgd_mapping(swapper_pg_dir, > __phys_to_virt(start), size); > + else { > + max_pfn = PFN_UP(start + size); > + max_low_pfn = max_pfn; > + }
This is a drive by review, but it got me thinking about your changes a bit:
- if you raise max_pfn when you hotplug memory, don't you need to lower it when you hot unplug memory as well?
- suppose that you have a platform which maps physical memory into the CPU's address space at 0x00_4000_0000 (1GB offset) and the kernel boots with 2GB of DRAM plugged by default. At that point we have not registered a swiotlb because we have less than 4GB of addressable physical memory, there is no IOMMU in that system, it's a happy world. Now assume that we plug an additional 2GB of DRAM into that system adjacent to the previous 2GB, from 0x00_C0000_0000 through 0x14_0000_0000, now we have physical addresses above 4GB, but we still don't have a swiotlb, some of our DMA_BIT_MASK(32) peripherals are going to be unable to DMA from that hot plugged memory, but they could if we had a swiotlb.
- now let's go even further but this is very contrived. Assume that the firmware has somewhat created a reserved memory region with a 'no-map' attribute thus indicating it does not want a struct page to be created for a specific PFN range, is it valid to "blindly" raise max_pfn if that region were to be at the end of the just hot-plugged memory? -- Florian
| |