[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YIbnO3BhOeUSRU0E@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:15:55 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Vladimir Isaev <Vladimir.Isaev@...opsys.com>
Cc: "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: Use max_high_pfn as a HIGHMEM zone border
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:55:00AM +0000, Vladimir Isaev wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Mon, April 26, 2021 2:29 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0300, Vladimir Isaev wrote:
> > > - max_zone_pfn[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = min_low_pfn;
> > > + max_zone_pfn[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = max_high_pfn;
> >
> > This is correct with PAE40, but it will break !PAE40 when "highmem" has lower
> > addresses than lowmem.
> >
> > It rather should be something like:
> >
> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARC_HAS_PAE40))
> > max_zone_pfn[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = max_high_pfn;
> > else
> > max_zone_pfn[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = min_low_pfn;
> >
>
> Not sure if I understand why we should have min_low_pfn here. In !PAE40
> case max_high_pfn just will be smaller than min_low_pfn.
Hmm, actually, you are right. This should be fine.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists