From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:27:20 +0000 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v27 1/9] memblock: add memblock_cap_memory_range() Message-ID: <20161110172720.GB17134@arm.com> References: <20161102044959.11954-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <20161102045153.12008-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161102045153.12008-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: AKASHI Takahiro Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, geoff@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, james.morse@arm.com, bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dyoung@redhat.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 01:51:53PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > 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 > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org > Cc: Andrew Morton > --- > 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? Will _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec