Re: [PATCH 1/3] memblock, nobootmem: Add memblock_virt_alloc_low()

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:23:02PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 12:12 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/bootmem.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
> > @@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
> >                                                     NUMA_NO_NODE);
> >  }
> > 
> > +/* Take arch's ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT at first*/
> > +#include <asm/processor.h>
> > +
> >  #ifndef ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT
> >  #define ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT  0xffffffffUL
> >  #endif
> 
> This won't help mostly since the ARM 32 arch don't set ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT.
> Sorry i couldn't respond to the thread earlier because of travel and
> don't have access to my board to try out the patches.

Let's think about this for a moment, shall we...

What does memblock_alloc_virt*() return?  It returns a virtual address.

How is that virtual address obtained?  ptr = phys_to_virt(alloc);

What is the valid address range for passing into phys_to_virt() ?  Only
lowmem addresses.

Hence, having ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT set to 4GB-1 by default seems to be
completely rediculous - and presumably this also fails on x86_32 if it
returns memory up at 4GB.

So... yes, I think reverting the arch/arm part of this patch is the right
solution, whether the rest of it should be reverted is something I can't
comment on.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: 5.8Mbps down 500kbps up.  Estimation
in database were 13.1 to 19Mbit for a good line, about 7.5+ for a bad.
Estimate before purchase was "up to 13.2Mbit".
--
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/