Re: riscv32 EXT4 splat, 6.8 regression?

[Nam Cao]

On 2024-04-16 Björn Töpel wrote:
> Nam Cao <namcao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > index fa34cf55037b..f600cfee0aef 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/init.c
> > @@ -197,7 +197,6 @@ early_param("mem", early_mem);
> >  static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> >  {
> >  	phys_addr_t vmlinux_end = __pa_symbol(&_end);
> > -	phys_addr_t max_mapped_addr;
> >  	phys_addr_t phys_ram_end, vmlinux_start;
> >  
> >  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL))
> > @@ -238,17 +237,9 @@ static void __init setup_bootmem(void)
> >  	/*
> >  	 * memblock allocator is not aware of the fact that last 4K bytes of
> >  	 * the addressable memory can not be mapped because of IS_ERR_VALUE
> > -	 * macro. Make sure that last 4k bytes are not usable by memblock
> > -	 * if end of dram is equal to maximum addressable memory.  For 64-bit
> > -	 * kernel, this problem can't happen here as the end of the virtual
> > -	 * address space is occupied by the kernel mapping then this check must
> > -	 * be done as soon as the kernel mapping base address is determined.
> > +	 * macro. Make sure that last 4k bytes are not usable by memblock.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) {
> > -		max_mapped_addr = __pa(~(ulong)0);
> > -		if (max_mapped_addr == (phys_ram_end - 1))
> > -			memblock_set_current_limit(max_mapped_addr - 4096);
> > -	}
> > +	memblock_reserve(__pa(-PAGE_SIZE), PAGE_SIZE);
> >  
> >  	min_low_pfn = PFN_UP(phys_ram_base);
> >  	max_low_pfn = max_pfn = PFN_DOWN(phys_ram_end);  
> 
> Nice! Would you mind submitting this as a proper fix (unless there's a
> way to do it non-arch specific like Matthew pointed out).

I don't mind, but I am waiting for the discussion on the non-arch solution.

Best regards,
Nam