linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/7] x86/mm: concentrate the code to memblock allocator enabled

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFgQCTsV13JSH_S2kSQGeUa3K0s_n4LeGqhrHwBEW9DWeCWgcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:06:10 +0800
From:   Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Chao Fan <fanc.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/7] x86/mm: concentrate the code to memblock allocator enabled

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 7:07 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/19 9:12 PM, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > This patch identifies the point where memblock alloc start. It has no
> > functional.
>
> It has no functional ... what?  Effects?
>
During re-organize the code, it takes me a long time to figure out why
memblock_set_bottom_up(true) is added here, and how far can it be
deferred. And finally, I realize that it only takes effect after
e820__memblock_setup(), the point where memblock allocator can work.
So I concentrate the related code, and hope this patch can classify
this truth.

> > -     memblock_set_current_limit(ISA_END_ADDRESS);
> > -     e820__memblock_setup();
> > -
> >       reserve_bios_regions();
> >
> >       if (efi_enabled(EFI_MEMMAP)) {
> > @@ -1113,6 +1087,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> >               efi_reserve_boot_services();
> >       }
> >
> > +     memblock_set_current_limit(0, ISA_END_ADDRESS, false);
> > +     e820__memblock_setup();
>
> It looks like you changed the arguments passed to
> memblock_set_current_limit().  How can this even compile?  Did you mean
> that this patch is not functional?
>
Sorry that during rebasing, merge trivial fix by mistake. I will build
against each patch.

Best regards,
Pingfan