Re: memblock and bootmem problems if start + size = 4GB

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Hello, Michal.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> I have reached some problems with memblock and bootmem code for some configurations.
> We can completely setup the whole system and all addresses in it.
> The problem happens if we place main memory to the end of address space when
> mem_start + size reach 4GB limit.
> 
> For example:
> mem_start      0xF000 0000
> mem_size       0x1000 0000 (or better lowmem size)
> mem_end        0xFFFF FFFF
> start + size 0x1 0000 0000 (u32 limit reached).
> 
> I have done some patches which completely remove start + size values from architecture specific
> code but I have found some problem in generic code too.
> 
> For example in bootmem code where are three places where physaddr + size is used.
> I would prefer to retype it to u64 because baseaddr and size don't need to be 2^n.
> 
> Is it correct solution? If yes, I will create proper patch.

Yeah, that's an inherent problem in using [) ranges but I think
chopping off the last page probably is simpler and more robust
solution.  Currently, memblock_add_region() would simply ignore if
address range overflows but making it just ignore the last page is
several lines of addition.  Wouldn't that be effective enough while
staying very simple?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>