[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVLzZlHMXeHIO9eG@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:11:18 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@...il.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/setup: Use a more concise memblock API
On 11/14/23 at 11:14am, Yuntao Wang wrote:
> When executing relocate_initrd(), the memblock.current_limit field has
> already been set to `max_pfn_mapped << PAGE_SHIFT`, so we can replace
> memblock_phys_alloc_range() with memblock_phys_alloc(), which has the same
> functionality but is more concise.
Fine to me, do we need consider other places in:
numa_alloc_distance()
numa_emulation()
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index ec2c21a1844e..422497c17eec 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -259,8 +259,7 @@ static void __init relocate_initrd(void)
> u64 area_size = PAGE_ALIGN(ramdisk_size);
>
> /* We need to move the initrd down into directly mapped mem */
> - u64 relocated_ramdisk = memblock_phys_alloc_range(area_size, PAGE_SIZE, 0,
> - PFN_PHYS(max_pfn_mapped));
> + u64 relocated_ramdisk = memblock_phys_alloc(area_size, PAGE_SIZE);
> if (!relocated_ramdisk)
> panic("Cannot find place for new RAMDISK of size %lld\n",
> ramdisk_size);
> --
> 2.42.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists