[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200701153157.GC5008@osiris>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:31:57 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/memblock: expose only miminal interface to
add/walk physmem
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:06:43PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:18:29PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > "physmem" in the memblock allocator is somewhat weird: it's not actually
> > used for allocation, it's simply information collected during boot, which
> > describes the unmodified physical memory map at boot time, without any
> > standby/hotplugged memory. It's only used on s390x and is currently the
> > only reason s390x keeps using CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK.
> >
> > Physmem isn't numa aware and current users don't specify any flags. Let's
> > hide it from the user, exposing only for_each_physmem(), and simplify. The
> > interface for physmem is now really minimalistic:
> > - memblock_physmem_add() to add ranges
> > - for_each_physmem() / __next_physmem_range() to walk physmem ranges
> >
> > Don't place it into an __init section and don't discard it without
> > CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. As we're reusing __next_mem_range(), remove
> > the __meminit notifier to avoid section mismatch warnings once
> > CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK is no longer used with
> > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP.
> >
> > While fixing up the documentation, sneak in some related cleanups. We can
> > stop setting CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP for s390x next.
>
> As you noted in the previous version it should have been
> CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK ;-)
>
> > Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> > Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/kernel/crash_dump.c | 6 ++--
> > include/linux/memblock.h | 28 ++++++++++++++---
> > mm/memblock.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
So I guess this should go via the s390 tree, since the second patch of
this series can go only upstream if both this patch and a patch which
is currently only on our features are merged before.
Any objections?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists