Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1162924 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] arm: fix non-section-aligned low memory mapping

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] arm: fix non-section-aligned low memory mapping Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2015-06-11 00:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] arm: fix non-section-aligned low memory mapping Min-Hua Chen <orca.chen@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 02:10 +0200

#1162924 — Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] arm: fix non-section-aligned low memory mapping

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:59:32AM +0800, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
> In current design, the memblock.current_limit is set to
> a section-aligned value in sanity_check_meminfo().
> 
> However, the section-aligned memblock may become non-section-aligned
> after arm_memblock_init(). For example, the first section-aligned
> memblock is 0x00000000-0x01000000 and sanity_check_meminfo sets
> current_limit to 0x01000000. After arm_memblock_init, two memory blocks
> [0x00c00000 - 0x00d00000] and [0x00ff0000 - 0x01000000] are reserved
> by memblock_reserve() and make the original memory block
> [0x00000000-0x01000000] becomes:

There isn't a problem with memblock_reserve().  That just marks the
memory as reserved, it doesn't steal the memory from the lowmem
mappings - in fact, it is still expected that reserved memory
claimed in this way will be mapped.

Somehow, I don't think this is what you're doing though, because you
go on to describe a problem which can only happen if you steal memory
after arm_memblock_init() has returned.

Don't do this.  There is a specific point in the boot sequence where you
are permitted to steal memory, which is done inside arm_memblock_init().
Stealing outside of that is not permitted.

arm_memblock_steal() is written to BUG_ON() if you attempt to do this
outside of the permissible code paths.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1162946

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:40:59PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:59:32AM +0800, Min-Hua Chen wrote:
> > In current design, the memblock.current_limit is set to
> > a section-aligned value in sanity_check_meminfo().
> > 
> > However, the section-aligned memblock may become non-section-aligned
> > after arm_memblock_init(). For example, the first section-aligned
> > memblock is 0x00000000-0x01000000 and sanity_check_meminfo sets
> > current_limit to 0x01000000. After arm_memblock_init, two memory blocks
> > [0x00c00000 - 0x00d00000] and [0x00ff0000 - 0x01000000] are reserved
> > by memblock_reserve() and make the original memory block
> > [0x00000000-0x01000000] becomes:
> 
> There isn't a problem with memblock_reserve().  That just marks the
> memory as reserved, it doesn't steal the memory from the lowmem
> mappings - in fact, it is still expected that reserved memory
> claimed in this way will be mapped.
> 
> Somehow, I don't think this is what you're doing though, because you
> go on to describe a problem which can only happen if you steal memory
> after arm_memblock_init() has returned.

Yes, your are right. The probelm is not caused by memblock_reserve().
It's caused by the memory reserving code in early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem(),
which is in arm_memblock_init().

The memory reserving code in of_of_reserved_mem.c allows the reserved
memory blocks to have a "no-map" property. When a reserved-memory
is marked "no-map", the mapping will be removed by memblock_remove() like
arm_memblock_steal() does.

> Don't do this.  There is a specific point in the boot sequence where you
> are permitted to steal memory, which is done inside arm_memblock_init().
> Stealing outside of that is not permitted.
> 
> arm_memblock_steal() is written to BUG_ON() if you attempt to do this
> outside of the permissible code paths.
> 
> -- 
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web