[PATCH v27 1/9] memblock: add memblock_cap_memory_range()
From: AKASHI Takahiro <hidden>
Date: 2016-11-11 02:42:24
Also in:
kexec, linux-mm
Will, (+ Cc: Dennis) On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:27:20PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 01:51:53PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:quoted
Add memblock_cap_memory_range() which will remove all the memblock regions except the range specified in the arguments. This function, like memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(), will not remove memblocks with MEMMAP_NOMAP attribute as they may be mapped and accessed later as "device memory." See the commit a571d4eb55d8 ("mm/memblock.c: add new infrastructure to address the mem limit issue"). This function is used, in a succeeding patch in the series of arm64 kdump suuport, to limit the range of usable memory, System RAM, on crash dump kernel. (Please note that "mem=" parameter is of little use for this purpose.) Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <redacted> Cc: linux-mm at kvack.org Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> --- include/linux/memblock.h | 1 + mm/memblock.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h index 5b759c9..0e770af 100644 --- a/include/linux/memblock.h +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h@@ -334,6 +334,7 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit); +void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); bool memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr); int memblock_is_map_memory(phys_addr_t addr); int memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 7608bc3..eb53876 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c@@ -1544,6 +1544,34 @@ void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit) (phys_addr_t)ULLONG_MAX); } +void __init memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) +{ + int start_rgn, end_rgn; + int i, ret; + + if (!size) + return; + + ret = memblock_isolate_range(&memblock.memory, base, size, + &start_rgn, &end_rgn); + if (ret) + return; + + /* remove all the MAP regions */ + for (i = memblock.memory.cnt - 1; i >= end_rgn; i--) + if (!memblock_is_nomap(&memblock.memory.regions[i])) + memblock_remove_region(&memblock.memory, i); + + for (i = start_rgn - 1; i >= 0; i--) + if (!memblock_is_nomap(&memblock.memory.regions[i])) + memblock_remove_region(&memblock.memory, i); + + /* truncate the reserved regions */ + memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, 0, base); + memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, + base + size, (phys_addr_t)ULLONG_MAX); +}This duplicates a bunch of the logic in memblock_mem_limit_remove_map. Can you not implement that in terms of your new, more general, function? e.g. by passing base == 0, and size == limit?
Obviously it's possible. I actually talked to Dennis before about merging them, but he was against my idea. Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI
Will