linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] mm: page_alloc: simplify has_managed

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0a4221cf-3703-27ff-fbdc-d7c419c5020c@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2023 14:40:14 +0800
From:   Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm: page_alloc: simplify has_managed_dma()



On 2023/5/30 12:18, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 05/30/23 at 10:10am, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/5/29 22:26, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 10:40:22PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>> The ZONE_DMA should only exists on Node 0, only check NODE_DATA(0)
>>>> is enough, so simplify has_managed_dma() and make it inline.
>>>
>>> That's true on x86, but is it true on all architectures?
>>
>> There is no document about numa node info for the DMA_ZONE, + Mike
>>
>> I used 'git grep -w ZONE_DMA arch/'
> 
> willy is right. max_zone_pfn can only limit the range of zone, but
> can't decide which zone is put on which node. The memory layout is
> decided by firmware. I searched commit log to get below commit which
> can give a good example.
> 
> commit c1d0da83358a2316d9be7f229f26126dbaa07468
> Author: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
> Date:   Fri Sep 25 21:19:28 2020 -0700
> 
>      mm: replace memmap_context by meminit_context
>      
>      Patch series "mm: fix memory to node bad links in sysfs", v3.
>      
>      Sometimes, firmware may expose interleaved memory layout like this:
>      
>       Early memory node ranges
>         node   1: [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000011fffffff]
>         node   2: [mem 0x0000000120000000-0x000000014fffffff]
>         node   1: [mem 0x0000000150000000-0x00000001ffffffff]
>         node   0: [mem 0x0000000200000000-0x000000048fffffff]
>         node   2: [mem 0x0000000490000000-0x00000007ffffffff]

Oh, it looks strange, but it do occur if firmware report as this way.

Thanks Willy and Baoquan, please ignore the patch.