[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CB63D63.5040500@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:14:43 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] memblock related fixes for -tip
On 10/13/2010 03:06 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 01:03 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> a) Add an explicit interface to allocate bottoms-up, and have Xen use it
>>> because it needs it. This is appropriate if (and only if) the
>>> allocations in Xen aren't underneath a bunch of extra layers.
>> The allocation is done in find_early_table_space() in x86/mm/init.c, so
>> the allocation call itself can't be easily replaced, but I suppose some
>> of the parameters could be global and tweaked by Xen code, but that's
>> pretty ugly.
> we already have
> base = memblock_find_in_range(start, max_pfn_mapped<<PAGE_SHIFT,
> tables, PAGE_SIZE);
>
> so looks like xen have set max_pfn_mapped wrong?
The Xen code is setting the max_pfn_mapped correctly, but it is just
being overridden by:
max_pfn_mapped = KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE >> PAGE_SHIFT;
in setup_arch() - and KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE is hard-coded to 512MB...
How is this correct? Does kernel/head_64.S map everything up to 512MB
or something?
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists