[PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Yinghai Lu]

In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.

Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.

Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>

---
 mm/memblock.c |    3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memblock.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
@@ -1077,6 +1077,9 @@ static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
 
+	if (max_addr > memblock.current_limit)
+		max_addr = memblock.current_limit;
+
 again:
 	alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, min_addr, max_addr,
 					    nid);

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Dave Hansen]

On 01/28/2014 02:04 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
> 
> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>

Do you have a git tree or cumulative set of patches that you'd like us
to all test?  I'm happy to boot it on my system, I just want to make
sure I've got the same set that you're testing.

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:04:25 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:

> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
> 
> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
> 
> ...
>
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memblock.c
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1077,6 +1077,9 @@ static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc
>  	if (!align)
>  		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
>  
> +	if (max_addr > memblock.current_limit)
> +		max_addr = memblock.current_limit;
> +
>  again:
>  	alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, min_addr, max_addr,
>  					    nid);

Thanks.

Kevin, Olof and Konrad (at least) have been hitting this.  It would be
great to get some tested-by's, please?

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
>
> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>

Tested-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>

Verified to resolve the crashes on boot on ARM.


-Olof

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Yinghai Lu]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 02:04 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
>>
>> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>
> Do you have a git tree or cumulative set of patches that you'd like us
> to all test?  I'm happy to boot it on my system, I just want to make
> sure I've got the same set that you're testing.

This one should only affect on arm and x86 the 32 bit kernel with more
then 4G RAM.

thanks

Yinghai

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Dave Hansen]

On 01/28/2014 02:47 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2014 02:04 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
>>>
>>> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
>>>
>> Do you have a git tree or cumulative set of patches that you'd like us
>> to all test?  I'm happy to boot it on my system, I just want to make
>> sure I've got the same set that you're testing.
> 
> This one should only affect on arm and x86 the 32 bit kernel with more
> then 4G RAM.

OK, let me rephrase.

Does anyone want me to test this on a 1TB 64-bit x86 system?  If yes,
please tell me which patches you want me to test, and on top of which
kernel.  I have three patches in this area, I think, but I don't want to
waste my time testing and reporting the wrong thing.

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Kevin Hilman]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
>
> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>
> ---
>  mm/memblock.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memblock.c
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1077,6 +1077,9 @@ static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc
>         if (!align)
>                 align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
>
> +       if (max_addr > memblock.current_limit)
> +               max_addr = memblock.current_limit;
> +
>  again:
>         alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, min_addr, max_addr,
>                                             nid);

Tested-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>

Verified various ARM boots to be passing again.

Kevin

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 01/28/2014 02:04 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
> >>
> >> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> >
> > Do you have a git tree or cumulative set of patches that you'd like us
> > to all test?  I'm happy to boot it on my system, I just want to make
> > sure I've got the same set that you're testing.
> 
> This one should only affect on arm and x86 the 32 bit kernel with more
> then 4G RAM.

Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

It fixes the issue I saw with Xen and 32-bit dom0 blowing up.

> 
> thanks
> 
> Yinghai

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 01/28/2014 02:04 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
> >>
> >> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> >
> > Do you have a git tree or cumulative set of patches that you'd like us
> > to all test?  I'm happy to boot it on my system, I just want to make
> > sure I've got the same set that you're testing.
> 
> This one should only affect on arm and x86 the 32 bit kernel with more
> then 4G RAM.

Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>

It fixes the issue I saw with Xen and 32-bit dom0 blowing up.

> 
> thanks
> 
> Yinghai

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Tony Luck]

Hmmph.  ia64 is broken too.  git bisect says:

commit ad6492b80f60a2139fa9bf8fd79b182fe5e3647c
Author: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon Jan 27 17:06:49 2014 -0800

    memblock, nobootmem: add memblock_virt_alloc_low()

is to blame.  But this patch doesn't fix it.  Still dies with:

PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: -1, 32768 bytes)
Sorting __ex_table...
kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:504!
swapper[0]: bugcheck! 0 [1]
Modules linked in:

CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 3.13.0-bisect-09219-g5e345db #10
task: a000000101040000 ti: a000000101040f10 task.ti: a000000101040f10
psr : 00001010084a2018 ifs : 8000000000000797 ip  :
[<a000000100eea530>]    Not tainted (3.13.0-bisect-09219-g5e345db)
ip is at alloc_bootmem_bdata+0x230/0x790
unat: 0000000000000000 pfs : 0000000000000797 rsc : 0000000000000003
rnat: a000000100dff0ee bsps: 0000000000000000 pr  : 96669601598a95a9
ldrs: 0000000000000000 ccv : 0000000000000000 fpsr: 0009804c8a70433f
csd : 0930ffff00063000 ssd : 0930ffff00063000
b0  : a000000100eea530 b6  : a0000001005f4040 b7  : a0000001005f3e00
f6  : 000000000000000000000 f7  : 1003e0000000000000000
f8  : 1003e0044b82fa09b5a53 f9  : 1003e0000000000001680
f10 : 1003e0000000000000008 f11 : 1003e00000000000002d0
r1  : a0000001017ce170 r2  : a00000010158e0a0 r3  : a0000001015ced80
r8  : 000000000000001f r9  : 0000000000000664 r10 : 0000000000000000
r11 : 0000000000000000 r12 : a00000010104fe20 r13 : a000000101040000
r14 : a00000010158e0a8 r15 : a00000010158e0a8 r16 : 0000000006640332
r17 : 0000000000000000 r18 : 0000000000007fff r19 : 0000000000000000
r20 : a000000101727e98 r21 : 0000000000000058 r22 : a000000101616c98
r23 : a000000101616c00 r24 : a000000101616c00 r25 : 00000000000003f8
r26 : a000000100e901a8 r27 : a000000100f59480 r28 : 0000000000000058
r29 : 0000000000000057 r30 : 00000000000016d0 r31 : 0000000000000030
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference (address 0000000000000000)
swapper[0]: Oops 11012296146944 [2]

-Tony

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>> > On 01/28/2014 02:04 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
>> >>
>> >> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>> >
>> > Do you have a git tree or cumulative set of patches that you'd like us
>> > to all test?  I'm happy to boot it on my system, I just want to make
>> > sure I've got the same set that you're testing.
>>
>> This one should only affect on arm and x86 the 32 bit kernel with more
>> then 4G RAM.
>
> Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>
> It fixes the issue I saw with Xen and 32-bit dom0 blowing up.
>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Yinghai
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Tony Luck]

Hmmph.  ia64 is broken too.  git bisect says:

commit ad6492b80f60a2139fa9bf8fd79b182fe5e3647c
Author: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon Jan 27 17:06:49 2014 -0800

    memblock, nobootmem: add memblock_virt_alloc_low()

is to blame.  But this patch doesn't fix it.  Still dies with:

PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: -1, 32768 bytes)
Sorting __ex_table...
kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:504!
swapper[0]: bugcheck! 0 [1]
Modules linked in:

CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 3.13.0-bisect-09219-g5e345db #10
task: a000000101040000 ti: a000000101040f10 task.ti: a000000101040f10
psr : 00001010084a2018 ifs : 8000000000000797 ip  :
[<a000000100eea530>]    Not tainted (3.13.0-bisect-09219-g5e345db)
ip is at alloc_bootmem_bdata+0x230/0x790
unat: 0000000000000000 pfs : 0000000000000797 rsc : 0000000000000003
rnat: a000000100dff0ee bsps: 0000000000000000 pr  : 96669601598a95a9
ldrs: 0000000000000000 ccv : 0000000000000000 fpsr: 0009804c8a70433f
csd : 0930ffff00063000 ssd : 0930ffff00063000
b0  : a000000100eea530 b6  : a0000001005f4040 b7  : a0000001005f3e00
f6  : 000000000000000000000 f7  : 1003e0000000000000000
f8  : 1003e0044b82fa09b5a53 f9  : 1003e0000000000001680
f10 : 1003e0000000000000008 f11 : 1003e00000000000002d0
r1  : a0000001017ce170 r2  : a00000010158e0a0 r3  : a0000001015ced80
r8  : 000000000000001f r9  : 0000000000000664 r10 : 0000000000000000
r11 : 0000000000000000 r12 : a00000010104fe20 r13 : a000000101040000
r14 : a00000010158e0a8 r15 : a00000010158e0a8 r16 : 0000000006640332
r17 : 0000000000000000 r18 : 0000000000007fff r19 : 0000000000000000
r20 : a000000101727e98 r21 : 0000000000000058 r22 : a000000101616c98
r23 : a000000101616c00 r24 : a000000101616c00 r25 : 00000000000003f8
r26 : a000000100e901a8 r27 : a000000100f59480 r28 : 0000000000000058
r29 : 0000000000000057 r30 : 00000000000016d0 r31 : 0000000000000030
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference (address 0000000000000000)
swapper[0]: Oops 11012296146944 [2]

-Tony

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>> > On 01/28/2014 02:04 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
>> >>
>> >> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>> >
>> > Do you have a git tree or cumulative set of patches that you'd like us
>> > to all test?  I'm happy to boot it on my system, I just want to make
>> > sure I've got the same set that you're testing.
>>
>> This one should only affect on arm and x86 the 32 bit kernel with more
>> then 4G RAM.
>
> Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>
> It fixes the issue I saw with Xen and 32-bit dom0 blowing up.
>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Yinghai
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Yinghai Lu]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmph.  ia64 is broken too.  git bisect says:
>
> commit ad6492b80f60a2139fa9bf8fd79b182fe5e3647c
> Author: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> Date:   Mon Jan 27 17:06:49 2014 -0800
>
>     memblock, nobootmem: add memblock_virt_alloc_low()
>
> is to blame.  But this patch doesn't fix it.  Still dies with:
>
> PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: -1, 32768 bytes)
> Sorting __ex_table...
> kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:504!

that's another path with memblock_virt wrapper for bootmem.

Let's me check that.

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Yinghai Lu]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmph.  ia64 is broken too.  git bisect says:
>
> commit ad6492b80f60a2139fa9bf8fd79b182fe5e3647c
> Author: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
> Date:   Mon Jan 27 17:06:49 2014 -0800
>
>     memblock, nobootmem: add memblock_virt_alloc_low()
>
> is to blame.  But this patch doesn't fix it.  Still dies with:
>
> PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: -1, 32768 bytes)
> Sorting __ex_table...
> kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:504!

that's another path with memblock_virt wrapper for bootmem.

Let's me check that.

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Yinghai Lu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmmph.  ia64 is broken too.  git bisect says:
>>
>> commit ad6492b80f60a2139fa9bf8fd79b182fe5e3647c
>> Author: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>> Date:   Mon Jan 27 17:06:49 2014 -0800
>>
>>     memblock, nobootmem: add memblock_virt_alloc_low()
>>
>> is to blame.  But this patch doesn't fix it.  Still dies with:
>>
>> PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: -1, 32768 bytes)
>> Sorting __ex_table...
>> kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:504!
>
> that's another path with memblock_virt wrapper for bootmem.

Please check attached patch.

Thanks

Yinghai

[-- Attachment #2: fix_memblock_virt_alloc_ia64.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1533 bytes --]

Subject: [PATCH] memblock, bootmem: Restore goal for alloc_low

Now we have memblock_virt_alloc_low to replace original bootmem api
in swiotlb.

But we should not use BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT for arch that does not support
CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM, as old api take 0.

| #define alloc_bootmem_low(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, 0)
|#define alloc_bootmem_low_pages_nopanic(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(x, PAGE_SIZE, 0)

and we have
 #define BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT __pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS)
for CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM.

Restore goal to 0 to fix ia64 crash, that Tony found.


Reported-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>

---
 include/linux/bootmem.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/bootmem.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic(
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_from_nopanic(

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Yinghai Lu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmmph.  ia64 is broken too.  git bisect says:
>>
>> commit ad6492b80f60a2139fa9bf8fd79b182fe5e3647c
>> Author: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>> Date:   Mon Jan 27 17:06:49 2014 -0800
>>
>>     memblock, nobootmem: add memblock_virt_alloc_low()
>>
>> is to blame.  But this patch doesn't fix it.  Still dies with:
>>
>> PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: -1, 32768 bytes)
>> Sorting __ex_table...
>> kernel BUG at mm/bootmem.c:504!
>
> that's another path with memblock_virt wrapper for bootmem.

Please check attached patch.

Thanks

Yinghai

[-- Attachment #2: fix_memblock_virt_alloc_ia64.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1533 bytes --]

Subject: [PATCH] memblock, bootmem: Restore goal for alloc_low

Now we have memblock_virt_alloc_low to replace original bootmem api
in swiotlb.

But we should not use BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT for arch that does not support
CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM, as old api take 0.

| #define alloc_bootmem_low(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, 0)
|#define alloc_bootmem_low_pages_nopanic(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(x, PAGE_SIZE, 0)

and we have
 #define BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT __pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS)
for CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM.

Restore goal to 0 to fix ia64 crash, that Tony found.


Reported-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>

---
 include/linux/bootmem.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/bootmem.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic(
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_from_nopanic(

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Tony Luck]

Applying on top of Linus' tree (commit =
dda68a8c1707b4011dc3c656fa1b2c6de6f7f304) I just get:

patching file include/linux/bootmem.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 264.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 272.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/bootmem.h.rej

- not a promising start :-(

-Tony

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Tony Luck]

Applying on top of Linus' tree (commit =
dda68a8c1707b4011dc3c656fa1b2c6de6f7f304) I just get:

patching file include/linux/bootmem.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 264.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 272.
2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/bootmem.h.rej

- not a promising start :-(

-Tony

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:12:13 -0800 Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Applying on top of Linus' tree (commit =
> dda68a8c1707b4011dc3c656fa1b2c6de6f7f304) I just get:
> 
> patching file include/linux/bootmem.h
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 264.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 272.
> 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/bootmem.h.rej
> 
> - not a promising start :-(
> 

It applies for me.  MIME getting you down?


From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Subject: memblock, bootmem: restore goal for alloc_low

Now we have memblock_virt_alloc_low to replace original bootmem api
in swiotlb.

But we should not use BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT for arch that does not support
CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM, as old api take 0.

| #define alloc_bootmem_low(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, 0)
|#define alloc_bootmem_low_pages_nopanic(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(x, PAGE_SIZE, 0)

and we have
 #define BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT __pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS)
for CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM.

Restore goal to 0 to fix ia64 crash, that Tony found.

Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Reported-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

 include/linux/bootmem.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff -puN include/linux/bootmem.h~memblock-bootmem-restore-goal-for-alloc_low include/linux/bootmem.h
--- a/include/linux/bootmem.h~memblock-bootmem-restore-goal-for-alloc_low
+++ a/include/linux/bootmem.h
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic(
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_from_nopanic(
_

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:12:13 -0800 Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Applying on top of Linus' tree (commit =
> dda68a8c1707b4011dc3c656fa1b2c6de6f7f304) I just get:
> 
> patching file include/linux/bootmem.h
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 264.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 272.
> 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/bootmem.h.rej
> 
> - not a promising start :-(
> 

It applies for me.  MIME getting you down?


From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Subject: memblock, bootmem: restore goal for alloc_low

Now we have memblock_virt_alloc_low to replace original bootmem api
in swiotlb.

But we should not use BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT for arch that does not support
CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM, as old api take 0.

| #define alloc_bootmem_low(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, 0)
|#define alloc_bootmem_low_pages_nopanic(x) \
|        __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(x, PAGE_SIZE, 0)

and we have
 #define BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT __pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS)
for CONFIG_NOBOOTMEM.

Restore goal to 0 to fix ia64 crash, that Tony found.

Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Reported-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

 include/linux/bootmem.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff -puN include/linux/bootmem.h~memblock-bootmem-restore-goal-for-alloc_low include/linux/bootmem.h
--- a/include/linux/bootmem.h~memblock-bootmem-restore-goal-for-alloc_low
+++ a/include/linux/bootmem.h
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_low_nopanic(
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir
 {
 	if (!align)
 		align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
-	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
+	return __alloc_bootmem_low_nopanic(size, align, 0);
 }
 
 static inline void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_from_nopanic(
_

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Tony Luck]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> It applies for me.  MIME getting you down?

Perhaps - Gmail's web client showed me a downward pointing arrow when I
moused over the attachment icon in Yinghai's e-mail. So I clicked it ... and
it looked like it downloaded a patch-like looking file. So I ran
"patch -p1 < file"
and whoops - that wasn't so great after all :-(

Your plain text e-mail version applied just fine.

GUI: 0 CLI: 1

Patch works - my ia64 boots again.  Thanks.

Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>

-Tony

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Tony Luck]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> It applies for me.  MIME getting you down?

Perhaps - Gmail's web client showed me a downward pointing arrow when I
moused over the attachment icon in Yinghai's e-mail. So I clicked it ... and
it looked like it downloaded a patch-like looking file. So I ran
"patch -p1 < file"
and whoops - that wasn't so great after all :-(

Your plain text e-mail version applied just fine.

GUI: 0 CLI: 1

Patch works - my ia64 boots again.  Thanks.

Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>

-Tony

Re: [PATCH] memblock: Add limit checking to memblock_virt_alloc

[Sachin Kamat]

On 29 January 2014 03:34, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> In original bootmem wrapper for memblock, we have limit checking.
>
> Add it to memblock_virt_alloc, to address arm and x86 booting crash.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
>
> ---

Confirmed that this patch fixes the boot crash issue on Exynos (ARM
based) boards.

Tested-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>

-- 
With warm regards,
Sachin