From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/20] mm: free_area_init: allow defining max_zone_pfn in descending order Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 23:15:22 +0300 Message-ID: <20200505201522.GA683243@linux.ibm.com> References: <20200429121126.17989-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20200429121126.17989-18-rppt@kernel.org> <20200503174138.GA114085@roeck-us.net> <20200503184300.GA154219@roeck-us.net> <20200504153901.GM14260@kernel.org> <20200505091946.GG342687@linux.ibm.com> <88b9465b-6e6d-86ca-3776-ccb7a5b60b7f@synopsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88b9465b-6e6d-86ca-3776-ccb7a5b60b7f@synopsys.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+glpr-linux-riscv=m.gmane-mx.org@lists.infradead.org To: Vineet Gupta Cc: Rich Felker , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Catalin Marinas , Heiko Carstens , Michal Hocko , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Max Filippov , Guo Ren , "linux-csky@vger.kernel.org" , "sparclinux@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , Greg Ungerer , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org" , Baoquan He , Jonathan Corbet , linux-sh@vger.kerne List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 06:07:46PM +0000, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 5/5/20 2:19 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > From the code I've got the impression that it is either one of them. I.e > > the physical memory is either at > > > > 0x8000_0000 - > > 0x0000_0000 - > > > > or > > > > 0x0_8000_0000 - > > 0x1_0000_0000 - > > > > Is this possible to have a system with three live ranges? Like > > > > 0x0_0000_0000 - > > 0x0_8000_0000 - > > 0x1_0000_0000 - > > We don't have such a system, but it is indeed possible in theory. The question is >  - Can other arches have such a setup too At the moment all architectures that support HIGHMEM have it above DMA/NORMAL. I'm not sure if such a setup is theoretically possible for other architectures, but as of now none of them support it in Linux. The general case is somewhat like max_dma_pfn <= max_normal_pfn < max_high_pfn And of course, either max_dma_pfn or max_high_pfn or both may be not needed for an architecture. >  - Is it not better to have the core retain the flexibility just in case Hmm, there is indeed flexibility in the nodes and zones initialization, but if you'd look more closely to free_area_init*() and friends, there is a lot of cruft and retrofitting ;-) What we have is two mutually exclusive paths, one that relies on the architecture to calculate zone sizes and find the holes between the zones (!CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP) and the other one that only requires the architectures to pass possible limit for each zone and detects the actual zone spans based on the knowlegde about the actual physical memory layout that comes from memblock. These patches attempt to drop the older method and switch all the architectures to use newer and simpler one. If the requirement to have support for 3-banks is a theoretical possibility, I would prefer to adjust ARC's version of arch_has_descending_max_zone_pfns() to cope with either of 2-banks configuration (PAE40 and non-PAE40) and deal with the third bank when/if it actually materializes. > Thx, > -Vineet -- Sincerely yours, Mike.