Re: [PATCH v2] memblock: make memblock_find_in_range method private
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-08-02 14:56:25
Also in:
kvmarm, linux-acpi, linux-devicetree, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-s390, lkml
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 12:37 AM Mike Rapoport [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Mike Rapoport <redacted> There are a lot of uses of memblock_find_in_range() along with memblock_reserve() from the times memblock allocation APIs did not exist. memblock_find_in_range() is the very core of memblock allocations, so any future changes to its internal behaviour would mandate updates of all the users outside memblock. Replace the calls to memblock_find_in_range() with an equivalent calls to memblock_phys_alloc() and memblock_phys_alloc_range() and make memblock_find_in_range() private method of memblock. This simplifies the callers, ensures that (unlikely) errors in memblock_reserve() are handled and improves maintainability of memblock_find_in_range(). Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <redacted> --- v2: don't change error message in arm::reserve_crashkernel(), per Russell v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210730104039.7047-1-rppt@kernel.org (local) arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 18 +++++-------- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/reserved_mem.c | 9 +++---- arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 36 ++++++++----------------- arch/mips/kernel/setup.c | 14 +++++----- arch/riscv/mm/init.c | 44 ++++++++++--------------------- arch/s390/kernel/setup.c | 10 ++++--- arch/x86/kernel/aperture_64.c | 5 ++-- arch/x86/mm/init.c | 21 +++++++++------ arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 5 ++-- arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c | 5 ++-- arch/x86/realmode/init.c | 2 +- drivers/acpi/tables.c | 5 ++-- drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 5 +--- drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c | 12 ++++++--- include/linux/memblock.h | 2 -- mm/memblock.c | 2 +- 16 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c index f97eb2371672..67f5421b2af7 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c@@ -1012,31 +1012,25 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) unsigned long long lowmem_max = __pa(high_memory - 1) + 1; if (crash_max > lowmem_max) crash_max = lowmem_max; - crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(CRASH_ALIGN, crash_max, - crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN); + + crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, CRASH_ALIGN, + CRASH_ALIGN, crash_max); if (!crash_base) { pr_err("crashkernel reservation failed - No suitable area found.\n"); return; } } else { + unsigned long long crash_max = crash_base + crash_size; unsigned long long start; - start = memblock_find_in_range(crash_base, - crash_base + crash_size, - crash_size, SECTION_SIZE); + start = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SECTION_SIZE, + crash_base, crash_max); if (start != crash_base) {
If this is true and start is non-zero, then you need an memblock_free(). However, since the range is equal to the size, then that can never happen and just checking !start is sufficient.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
pr_err("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use.\n"); return; } } - ret = memblock_reserve(crash_base, crash_size); - if (ret < 0) { - pr_warn("crashkernel reservation failed - memory is in use (0x%lx)\n", - (unsigned long)crash_base); - return; - } - pr_info("Reserving %ldMB of memory at %ldMB for crashkernel (System RAM: %ldMB)\n", (unsigned long)(crash_size >> 20), (unsigned long)(crash_base >> 20),diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/reserved_mem.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/reserved_mem.c index d654921dd09b..578670e3f608 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/reserved_mem.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/reserved_mem.c@@ -92,12 +92,10 @@ void __init kvm_hyp_reserve(void) * this is unmapped from the host stage-2, and fallback to PAGE_SIZE. */ hyp_mem_size = hyp_mem_pages << PAGE_SHIFT; - hyp_mem_base = memblock_find_in_range(0, memblock_end_of_DRAM(), - ALIGN(hyp_mem_size, PMD_SIZE), - PMD_SIZE); + hyp_mem_base = memblock_phys_alloc(ALIGN(hyp_mem_size, PMD_SIZE), + PMD_SIZE); if (!hyp_mem_base) - hyp_mem_base = memblock_find_in_range(0, memblock_end_of_DRAM(), - hyp_mem_size, PAGE_SIZE); + hyp_mem_base = memblock_phys_alloc(hyp_mem_size, PAGE_SIZE); else hyp_mem_size = ALIGN(hyp_mem_size, PMD_SIZE);@@ -105,7 +103,6 @@ void __init kvm_hyp_reserve(void) kvm_err("Failed to reserve hyp memory\n"); return; } - memblock_reserve(hyp_mem_base, hyp_mem_size); kvm_info("Reserved %lld MiB at 0x%llx\n", hyp_mem_size >> 20, hyp_mem_base);diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c index 8490ed2917ff..d566478a06dd 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ phys_addr_t arm64_dma_phys_limit __ro_after_init; static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) { unsigned long long crash_base, crash_size; + unsigned long crash_max = arm64_dma_phys_limit;
It all works out to the same size, but it doesn't make sense that crash_base and crash_size are long long and crash_max is long.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
int ret; ret = parse_crashkernel(boot_command_line, memblock_phys_mem_size(),@@ -84,33 +85,18 @@ static void __init reserve_crashkernel(void) crash_size = PAGE_ALIGN(crash_size); - if (crash_base == 0) { - /* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */ - crash_base = memblock_find_in_range(0, arm64_dma_phys_limit, - crash_size, SZ_2M); - if (crash_base == 0) { - pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n", - crash_size); - return; - } - } else { - /* User specifies base address explicitly. */ - if (!memblock_is_region_memory(crash_base, crash_size)) { - pr_warn("cannot reserve crashkernel: region is not memory\n"); - return; - } + /* User specifies base address explicitly. */ + if (crash_base) + crash_max = crash_base + crash_size; - if (memblock_is_region_reserved(crash_base, crash_size)) { - pr_warn("cannot reserve crashkernel: region overlaps reserved memory\n"); - return; - } - - if (!IS_ALIGNED(crash_base, SZ_2M)) { - pr_warn("cannot reserve crashkernel: base address is not 2MB aligned\n"); - return;
We've lost the alignment check. Perhaps memblock_phys_alloc_range() should check that the start matches the alignment. That would simplify the return handling as it seems NULL is not the only error case.
- }
+ /* Current arm64 boot protocol requires 2MB alignment */
+ crash_base = memblock_phys_alloc_range(crash_size, SZ_2M,
+ crash_base, crash_max);
+ if (!crash_base) {
+ pr_warn("cannot allocate crashkernel (size:0x%llx)\n",
+ crash_size);
+ return;
}
- memblock_reserve(crash_base, crash_size);
pr_info("crashkernel reserved: 0x%016llx - 0x%016llx (%lld MB)\n",
crash_base, crash_base + crash_size, crash_size >> 20);[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/x86/realmode/init.c b/arch/x86/realmode/init.c index 6534c92d0f83..31b5856010cb 100644 --- a/arch/x86/realmode/init.c +++ b/arch/x86/realmode/init.c@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ void __init reserve_real_mode(void) WARN_ON(slab_is_available()); /* Has to be under 1M so we can execute real-mode AP code. */ - mem = memblock_find_in_range(0, 1<<20, size, PAGE_SIZE); + mem = memblock_phys_alloc_range(size, PAGE_SIZE, 0, 1<<20); if (!mem) pr_info("No sub-1M memory is available for the trampoline\n"); else
Don't you need to drop the memblock_reserve() after this? _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel