[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0c53509-98b3-11a8-2bf2-b43cdd67b5de@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:26:57 +0800
From: Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>,
Daniel Vacek <neelx@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/memblock.c: hardcode the end_pfn being -1"
On 3/16/2018 5:06 PM, Michal Hocko Wrote:
> On Thu 15-03-18 19:56:06, Jia He wrote:
>> This reverts commit 379b03b7fa05f7db521b7732a52692448a3c34fe.
>>
>> Commit 864b75f9d6b0 ("mm/page_alloc: fix memmap_init_zone pageblock
>> alignment") introduced boot hang issues in arm/arm64 machines, so
>> Ard Biesheuvel reverted in commit 3e04040df6d4. But there is a
>> preparation patch for commit 864b75f9d6b0. So just revert it for
>> the sake of caution.
> Why? Is there anything wrong with this one?
I don't think there might be anything wrong. Justin for the sake of caution.
Please ignore this patch if you prefer to keep 379b03b7fa.
But seems parameter *max_pfn* is useless and can be removed in this case?
Cheers,
Jia
>> Signed-off-by: Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
>> ---
>> mm/memblock.c | 10 +++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
>> index b6ba6b7..5a9ca2a 100644
>> --- a/mm/memblock.c
>> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
>> @@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn,
>> struct memblock_type *type = &memblock.memory;
>> unsigned int right = type->cnt;
>> unsigned int mid, left = 0;
>> - phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(++pfn);
>> + phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(pfn + 1);
>>
>> do {
>> mid = (right + left) / 2;
>> @@ -1118,15 +1118,15 @@ unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn,
>> type->regions[mid].size))
>> left = mid + 1;
>> else {
>> - /* addr is within the region, so pfn is valid */
>> - return pfn;
>> + /* addr is within the region, so pfn + 1 is valid */
>> + return min(pfn + 1, max_pfn);
>> }
>> } while (left < right);
>>
>> if (right == type->cnt)
>> - return -1UL;
>> + return max_pfn;
>> else
>> - return PHYS_PFN(type->regions[right].base);
>> + return min(PHYS_PFN(type->regions[right].base), max_pfn);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists