From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC4EC3A59D for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 04:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F9A2173E for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 04:06:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726332AbfHVEGD convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:06:03 -0400 Received: from m9a0001g.houston.softwaregrp.com ([15.124.64.66]:45870 "EHLO m9a0001g.houston.softwaregrp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725710AbfHVEGD (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:06:03 -0400 Received: FROM m9a0001g.houston.softwaregrp.com (15.121.0.191) BY m9a0001g.houston.softwaregrp.com WITH ESMTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 04:05:20 +0000 Received: from M9W0067.microfocus.com (2002:f79:be::f79:be) by M9W0068.microfocus.com (2002:f79:bf::f79:bf) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 03:59:43 +0000 Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (15.124.72.10) by M9W0067.microfocus.com (15.121.0.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 03:59:43 +0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Sct61Eq1ZDoPUhgRd4NEdhuP+DxK3iNhKluTI3NSNt2eoK02ihMZfa2haFOhBOE5kiqJBYgDng4lKlzDt50G35FlFlRsbZBvUyx8Ft/iVfCdNeLNFh5N13XK6KR7Y1tcSv6JraO73rt6HIEm6jqVuKUyDlLmQQOGeHCiZGKTUX38cdT/zNxbt2St8YT+nGxnth3MSVFwsENOq/V28Fd0s5JQARFX9x6nUmYbLekSe7WCm5kAeQtxBMGvqP0/PHBnbMLsUvDK7f/5tuXqwfhG5Kq6DiqZXYaSKdV8lhGAMIoTQdz1ObDs2BrKEVHA08hyv/qDTWDCWywHG9x551T2Ew== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tW2RhL7H2LNeHEe6Aan1RmlgL5J2iXm7mi6jOyFKPjo=; b=fhP/q5fduYIw0DiDORwW3ohHuP2nZnsE5od1sRa/2ddp8k91LGryf4gwO0TmNHDmEA1xM0xgrU1kT2851Wn06JflgEI5RtKaPunuT5sexv3A/7gO5UYeuBrtW9Q5czoEPq3QKREbD7XO5aZ30f1q04L7krGxri8cJBsSAdAMQavBCkEmYNFO9fBfqE1S1Q7Sp0rLHmXWpXhV2iuHnZA2He45sFbzVheTIi1Mqhj6fR2n+LnU587VxvlYI7POpvI+b+7lJ+wGSDWrYlo9iIK/XoIPdnHcaSTXdcQfdY/6YXDQ8tOvsHtTFmVOoIrPzpXgF3Rw01SWEA3L5JyVjgErHQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none Received: from BY5PR18MB3283.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.255.139.203) by BY5PR18MB3219.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.255.137.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2178.18; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 03:59:43 +0000 Received: from BY5PR18MB3283.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::847e:511a:8cc2:8fca]) by BY5PR18MB3283.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::847e:511a:8cc2:8fca%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2178.020; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 03:59:43 +0000 From: Chester Lin To: "linux@armlinux.org.uk" , "rppt@linux.ibm.com" , "ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "geert@linux-m68k.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" CC: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "guillaume.gardet@arm.com" , Gary Lin , Joey Lee Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: skip nomap memblocks while finding the lowmem/highmem boundary Thread-Topic: [PATCH] arm: skip nomap memblocks while finding the lowmem/highmem boundary Thread-Index: AQHVWJwNXyBr+dQszki0v7NBI7XKFacGirsA Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 03:59:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20190822035920.GA27154@linux-8mug> References: <20190822034425.25899-1-clin@suse.com> In-Reply-To: <20190822034425.25899-1-clin@suse.com> Accept-Language: zh-TW, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-clientproxiedby: DB8PR03CA0014.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:be::27) To BY5PR18MB3283.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:196::11) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=clin@suse.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [202.47.205.198] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 02ef12b8-4396-44c5-322e-08d726b529af x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020);SRVR:BY5PR18MB3219; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR18MB3219: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273; x-forefront-prvs: 01371B902F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(7916004)(4636009)(396003)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(199004)(189003)(102836004)(6116002)(110136005)(8676002)(6436002)(6306002)(7416002)(81156014)(14454004)(3846002)(386003)(6506007)(11346002)(446003)(99286004)(256004)(14444005)(2201001)(9686003)(305945005)(76176011)(25786009)(86362001)(81166006)(2906002)(6512007)(1076003)(6246003)(33656002)(486006)(64756008)(52116002)(66556008)(66946007)(66476007)(66446008)(53936002)(2501003)(6486002)(8936002)(7736002)(229853002)(5660300002)(107886003)(4326008)(478600001)(71200400001)(71190400001)(66066001)(476003)(54906003)(186003)(33716001)(316002)(26005);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:BY5PR18MB3219;H:BY5PR18MB3283.namprd18.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en;PTR:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: suse.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: pihe8yK0ze8ASnxoz63m0fmDIDLGoLmFLD9D55ARfvfBV782FUNWq3VheeJOB/urbP/4uq2WnZEE96yvFqgYB3P2Ebj8V4atvHDgKBzVmkW8p5BUVjYnzB29uDrC88mC749ubSLYIWj+HYWhgYP+eKN74/t0K7CNFyiPMtVqaibPW6PruQfcDzyo/i07oAfe49Cz7JaXaKFGC2xEJ0uo62EITHOzlTQ/Tq2D5w9zhf25gux42fFbVCXPDSW5kRNDYOO6rXSmH1/lMAnUhGMBMgX7iUOaS29s4YqHrMe/QVqBGb6nFKIpGub9jtsJZ0Tigd4Ap8gw6ZEE3edYDSZnV5Ol4KGvUahNxxVtpAh0P60Ue8WRIwrYOOnyZXBWe6bp+0klrLccCK37pXeeP3oXIklAtPVTKp9yoWFq2Op34Vs= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <655EB30C6C68C1439EF38D1F1C4169BB@namprd18.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 02ef12b8-4396-44c5-322e-08d726b529af X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Aug 2019 03:59:42.8716 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 856b813c-16e5-49a5-85ec-6f081e13b527 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: AEtHnytHCPRzfmfXtZxVyvYxFJm1RXwZQEsqrXZil/MvFjPUeRcbmLG9Jz+YvEi9 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR18MB3219 X-OriginatorOrg: suse.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:45:34AM +0800, Chester Lin wrote: > adjust_lowmem_bounds() checks every memblocks in order to find the boundary > between lowmem and highmem. However some memblocks could be marked as NOMAP > so they are not used by kernel, which should be skipped while calculating > the boundary. > > Signed-off-by: Chester Lin > --- > arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > index 426d9085396b..b86dba44d828 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > @@ -1181,6 +1181,9 @@ void __init adjust_lowmem_bounds(void) > phys_addr_t block_start = reg->base; > phys_addr_t block_end = reg->base + reg->size; > > + if (memblock_is_nomap(reg)) > + continue; > + > if (reg->base < vmalloc_limit) { > if (block_end > lowmem_limit) > /* > -- > 2.22.0 > Hi Russell, Mike and Ard, Per the discussion in the thread "[PATH] efi/arm: fix allocation failure ...", (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/21/163), I presume that the change to disregard NOMAP memblocks in adjust_lowmem_bounds() should be separated as a single patch. Please let me know if any suggestion, thank you.