Re: [patch]x86: arch_add_memory round up address

[Yasunori Goto]

> On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:40:34PM +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:22:50PM +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 14:04 +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >> > Round up address to a page, otherwise the last page isn't mapped.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >> > ---
> > >> >> >  arch/x86/mm/init_64.c |    3 ++-
> > >> >> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Index: linux/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> > >> >> > ===================================================================
> > >> >> > --- linux.orig/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c    2008-10-09 11:42:33.000000000 +0800
> > >> >> > +++ linux/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c 2008-10-09 11:43:22.000000000 +0800
> > >> >> > @@ -721,7 +721,8 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start,
> > >> >> >        unsigned long nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > >> >> >        int ret;
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -       last_mapped_pfn = init_memory_mapping(start, start + size-1);
> > >> >> > +       last_mapped_pfn = init_memory_mapping(start,
> > >> >> > +               round_up(start + size-1, PAGE_SIZE));
> > >> >> >        if (last_mapped_pfn > max_pfn_mapped)
> > >> >> >                max_pfn_mapped = last_mapped_pfn;
> > >> >>
> > >> >> should use
> > >> >>
> > >> >> last_mapped_pfn = init_memory_mapping(start, start + size);
> > >> > No, this still can't guarantee page aligned, though this works in my
> > >> > test
> > >>
> > >> who will call arch_add_memory? that should be start and size already
> > >> be page aligned.
> > > It's memory hotplug. Doing a round up is always ok and safe even it might be already aligned.
> > >
> > 
> > it seems rounding up in that case is wrong...
> > 
> > if the caller call that funtion with extra half page, you don't need
> > map that half page, because you can not use it.
> shouldn't we mark such page as reserved and so it will not be used? This is the way we handle hole.

Just curious,
have you ever seen a real machine which needs this patch?

If this patch is needed, there is the firmware which specifies
half page size for new memory's size...

Bye.
-- 
Yasunori Goto 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/