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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F16C433EF for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 15:32:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236465AbiFBPcE (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:32:04 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35280 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236452AbiFBPb4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:56 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-x112d.google.com (mail-yw1-x112d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8C7BCA4 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2022 08:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x112d.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2f83983782fso55139777b3.6 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:31:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8Knz9JmJqm4EucxNHcnCzTZMEqb1eXMDB2BBmxOvSfo=; b=A5BEurTXTqPI2SJfMM+0Og5mkfT1VMkGbC38WlggmdEdOivuFGZMJrBOEArKLrgmjd ispcV5TBg8MDV6Pw1F93Jo101+POqcpuj3mm1Cx7/NWgjNEQVIrUM26/JOdE6eIM9PNe NK5jB9oLoo+rd+ELGFkAdAstHirBUwRDd0X1CRUyvyl4zf02btaqHCrhk1Mo3f2mp9p1 PwcArktmbaggGkq20umNK6JKAtWRVvfsfnKee0/0oA68IQr72FAwhg3zsPurigPZynB4 WrPeKRvKMWcdQNpGntCfhvjn3oaDTMSsKRF5TSZ/yGtFOgxPk0tMfTtjbfikgukep6cx 7O7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8Knz9JmJqm4EucxNHcnCzTZMEqb1eXMDB2BBmxOvSfo=; b=6CeU/mLpgXLD6QON6xbooSQ+6RRfc7aUIPtVUwtJGm3YdYS/PUFhTzsaVIwMV3kqq3 1uZOacuQ/k4/cmyCuPNN66yj2HAFUkcIKu9ylzKvSeWtl71FuFqlCG3M+nPGVyJSlNaT 20M9M0LqD1+rXSUUX5N5u/ahXDSj4k0iMBkErQ2l7Q00ckmN1HoaS6JNcMNAkGTrxvCB +RAnceiy0XvOWLam4xotaNrDL1EB1X+LErZME5DRCnz11eVye1GerwDKidTCUO9Tc301 nItPUaw1MAKHZrUpBasZbGyM2F2AD+ul0hV5CfGAq1Pbq0pMzYn99aig4x9tf6qpgG5r c6/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tNiCZYFcaDjt0DZ9iXDIUkhtFFSK7rV9RVUTL627nHbrwH18i 0PLUwJC+dCLa9DmVix2vKbdexHVwZ1MOdSpJBNTiuw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDgn+XcjAIve032i0v41nPDh9/gB1Ke2pcinTpAdoGGtfFIm2nBM+7mIhCzFsvqob6zbUErmaGn6ssSdJrp54= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ca08:0:b0:30c:b11b:8cfc with SMTP id m8-20020a0dca08000000b0030cb11b8cfcmr6352036ywd.362.1654183911131; Thu, 02 Jun 2022 08:31:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220425033934.68551-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220425033934.68551-7-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220506153013.e6v4q2qhuhqumfiu@box.shutemov.name> <20220513144515.fx2cvo3rjued3vy5@black.fi.intel.com> <0c545c5f-3540-1441-7a7d-359b6795f43a@amd.com> <19ac7bbc-82f1-8350-8638-163303d682b1@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <19ac7bbc-82f1-8350-8638-163303d682b1@amd.com> From: Dionna Amalie Glaze Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 08:31:40 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 06/12] x86/boot/compressed: Handle unaccepted memory To: "Gupta, Pankaj" Cc: "Xu, Min M" , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , "Gao, Jiaqi" , Michael Roth , Borislav Petkov , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , "Lutomirski, Andy" , "Christopherson,, Sean" , Andrew Morton , "Rodel, Jorg" , Ard Biesheuvel , Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , "Hansen, Dave" , Mike Rapoport , David Hildenbrand , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 5:51 AM Gupta, Pankaj wrote: > AFAIU the unaccepted memory also stays in buddy (first via slow path) > and should be accounted automatically in free? > No, the last patch adds unaccepted mem as a differently accounted memory type. > > > > So when I see 2044MB free vs 7089MB free in my VMs, the two are > > roughly 5GB different. > > Is it possible all memory got allocated with memblock? Maybe some > variable tests to validate with '/proc/meminfo | grep UnacceptedMem' > would give you more clue. > free -k parses /proc/meminfo for MemFree and SwapFree in /proc/meminfo, so it sounds like it should also add in UnacceptedMem. We'll try that. Thanks. -- -Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)