Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/memblock.c: hardcode the end_pfn being -1"
From: Jia He
Date: Fri Mar 16 2018 - 05:27:15 EST
On 3/16/2018 5:06 PM, Michal Hocko Wrote:
On Thu 15-03-18 19:56:06, Jia He wrote:
This reverts commit 379b03b7fa05f7db521b7732a52692448a3c34fe.
Commit 864b75f9d6b0 ("mm/page_alloc: fix memmap_init_zone pageblock
alignment") introduced boot hang issues in arm/arm64 machines, so
Ard Biesheuvel reverted in commit 3e04040df6d4. But there is a
preparation patch for commit 864b75f9d6b0. So just revert it for
the sake of caution.
Why? Is there anything wrong with this one?
I don't think there might be anything wrong. Justin for the sake of caution.
Please ignore this patch if you prefer to keep 379b03b7fa.
But seems parameter *max_pfn* is useless and can be removed in this case?
Cheers,
Jia
Signed-off-by: Jia He <jia.he@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/memblock.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index b6ba6b7..5a9ca2a 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1107,7 +1107,7 @@ unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn,
struct memblock_type *type = &memblock.memory;
unsigned int right = type->cnt;
unsigned int mid, left = 0;
- phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(++pfn);
+ phys_addr_t addr = PFN_PHYS(pfn + 1);
do {
mid = (right + left) / 2;
@@ -1118,15 +1118,15 @@ unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn,
type->regions[mid].size))
left = mid + 1;
else {
- /* addr is within the region, so pfn is valid */
- return pfn;
+ /* addr is within the region, so pfn + 1 is valid */
+ return min(pfn + 1, max_pfn);
}
} while (left < right);
if (right == type->cnt)
- return -1UL;
+ return max_pfn;
else
- return PHYS_PFN(type->regions[right].base);
+ return min(PHYS_PFN(type->regions[right].base), max_pfn);
}
/**
--
2.7.4