[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f2af450-1080-2dcd-9c85-6190e7e14f27@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 11:04:24 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger <ken@...elabs.ch>,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, osalvador@...e.de
Cc: luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Fix marking of unused sub-pmd ranges
On 09.05.22 11:06, Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger wrote:
> The unused part precedes the new range spanned by the start, end
> parameters of vmemmap_use_new_sub_pmd. This means it actually goes from
> ALIGN_DOWN(start, PMD_SIZE) up to start. Use the correct address when
> applying the mark using memset.
>
> Fixes: 8d400913c231 ("x86/vmemmap: handle unpopulated sub-pmd ranges")
> Signed-off-by: Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger <ken@...elabs.ch>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/init_64.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> index 96d34ebb20a9..e2942335d143 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> @@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static void __meminit vmemmap_use_sub_pmd(unsigned long start, unsigned long end
>
> static void __meminit vmemmap_use_new_sub_pmd(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> {
> + const unsigned long page = ALIGN_DOWN(start, PMD_SIZE);
> +
> vmemmap_flush_unused_pmd();
>
> /*
> @@ -914,8 +916,7 @@ static void __meminit vmemmap_use_new_sub_pmd(unsigned long start, unsigned long
> * Mark with PAGE_UNUSED the unused parts of the new memmap range
> */
> if (!IS_ALIGNED(start, PMD_SIZE))
> - memset((void *)start, PAGE_UNUSED,
> - start - ALIGN_DOWN(start, PMD_SIZE));
> + memset((void *)page, PAGE_UNUSED, start - page);
>
> /*
> * We want to avoid memset(PAGE_UNUSED) when populating the vmemmap of
As the x86 code was based on my s390x code, I assume that this was
accidentally introduced in the x86 variant.
We'd be marking the wrong range PAGE_UNUSED.
Your fix looks correct to me:
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Do we want to cc stable?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists