Re: [PATCH] x86/e820: apply 'mem=' boot command while reserving memory using boot_params

From: Byungchul Park
Date: Tue Apr 23 2024 - 06:23:45 EST


On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 07:13:23PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> I might miss something. Please lemme know if I go wrong. Thanks.
>
> Byungchul
>
> --->8---
> >From 51f3b5b9bf9685aa431c00908771151edd702483 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@xxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:54:48 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] x86/e820: apply 'mem=' boot command while reserving memory
> using boot_params
>
> When a user specifies 'mem=' boot command, it's expected to limit the
> maximum address of usable memory for the kernel no matter what the
> memory map source is. However, 'mem=' boot command doesn't work since
> it doesn't respect it when reserving memory using boot_params.
>
> Applied the restriction when reserving memory using boot_params. While
> at it, renamed mem_size to a more specific name, boot_mem_limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul@xxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> index 6f1b379e3b38..af9d1d95ef5a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> @@ -880,11 +880,11 @@ static void __init early_panic(char *msg)
>
> static int userdef __initdata;
>
> +static u64 boot_mem_limit = U64_MAX;
> +
> /* The "mem=nopentium" boot option disables 4MB page tables on 32-bit kernels: */
> static int __init parse_memopt(char *p)
> {
> - u64 mem_size;
> -
> if (!p)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -899,16 +899,16 @@ static int __init parse_memopt(char *p)
> }
>
> userdef = 1;
> - mem_size = memparse(p, &p);
> + boot_mem_limit = memparse(p, &p);
>
> /* Don't remove all memory when getting "mem={invalid}" parameter: */
> - if (mem_size == 0)
> + if (boot_mem_limit == 0)

I should've handled the case that the return value is 0. I will fix it.
Before going ahead, it'd be appreciated to tell if this approach is
correct. Thank you.

Byungchul

> return -EINVAL;
>
> - e820__range_remove(mem_size, ULLONG_MAX - mem_size, E820_TYPE_RAM, 1);
> + e820__range_remove(boot_mem_limit, ULLONG_MAX - boot_mem_limit, E820_TYPE_RAM, 1);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> - max_mem_size = mem_size;
> + max_mem_size = boot_mem_limit;
> #endif
>
> return 0;
> @@ -1036,6 +1036,8 @@ void __init e820__reserve_setup_data(void)
> early_memunmap(data, len);
> }
>
> + e820__range_remove(boot_mem_limit, ULLONG_MAX - boot_mem_limit,
> + E820_TYPE_RESERVED_KERN, 1);
> e820__update_table(e820_table);
>
> pr_info("extended physical RAM map:\n");
> --
> 2.17.1