Thread (3 messages) 3 messages, 2 authors, 2020-06-15

Re: [PATCH 04/21] mm: free_area_init: use maximal zone PFNs rather than zone sizes

From: Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2020-06-15 07:17:56
Also in: linux-alpha, linux-arch, linux-doc, linux-m68k, linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-s390, linux-sh, linux-um, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux

Hi Mike,

On 15/6/20 4:22 pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 01:53:42PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
quoted
From: Mike Rapoport <redacted>
quoted
Currently, architectures that use free_area_init() to initialize memory map
and node and zone structures need to calculate zone and hole sizes. We can
use free_area_init_nodes() instead and let it detect the zone boundaries
while the architectures will only have to supply the possible limits for
the zones.

Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <redacted>
This is causing some new warnings for me on boot on at least one non-MMU m68k target:
There were a couple of changes that cause this. The free_area_init()
now relies on memblock data and architectural limits for zone sizes
rather than on explisit pfns calculated by the arch code. I've update
motorola variant and missed coldfire. Angelo sent a fix for mcfmmu.c
[1] and I've updated it to include nommu as well

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-m68k/20200614225119.777702-1-angelo.dureghello@timesys.com (local)
quoted
From 55b8523df2a5c4565b132c0691990f0821040fec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Angelo Dureghello <redacted>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:51:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] m68k: fix registration of memory regions with memblock

Commit 3f08a302f533 ("mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP option")
introduced assumption that UMA systems have their memory at node 0 and
updated most of them, but it forgot nommu and coldfire variants of m68k.

The later change in free area initialization in commit fa3354e4ea39 ("mm:
free_area_init: use maximal zone PFNs rather than zone sizes") exposed that
and caused a lot of "BUG: Bad page state in process swapper" reports.
Even with this patch applied I am still seeing the same messages.

Regards
Greg


quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Using memblock_add_node() with nid = 0 to register memory banks solves the
problem.

Fixes: 3f08a302f533 ("mm: remove CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP option")
Fixes: fa3354e4ea39 ("mm: free_area_init: use maximal zone PFNs rather than zone sizes")
Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <redacted>
Co-developed-by: Mike Rapoport <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <redacted>
---
  arch/m68k/kernel/setup_no.c | 2 +-
  arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c       | 2 +-
  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_no.c b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_no.c
index e779b19e0193..0c4589a39ba9 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_no.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/kernel/setup_no.c
@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
  	pr_debug("MEMORY -> ROMFS=0x%p-0x%06lx MEM=0x%06lx-0x%06lx\n ",
  		 __bss_stop, memory_start, memory_start, memory_end);
  
-	memblock_add(memory_start, memory_end - memory_start);
+	memblock_add_node(memory_start, memory_end - memory_start, 0);
  
  	/* Keep a copy of command line */
  	*cmdline_p = &command_line[0];
diff --git a/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c b/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c
index 29f47923aa46..7d04210d34f0 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ void __init cf_bootmem_alloc(void)
  	m68k_memory[0].addr = _rambase;
  	m68k_memory[0].size = _ramend - _rambase;
  
-	memblock_add(m68k_memory[0].addr, m68k_memory[0].size);
+	memblock_add_node(m68k_memory[0].addr, m68k_memory[0].size, 0);
  
  	/* compute total pages in system */
  	num_pages = PFN_DOWN(_ramend - _rambase);
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help