From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: l.stach@pengutronix.de (Lucas Stach) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:34:32 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: fix bug which VMALLOC_START is lowwer than 0xf0000000 In-Reply-To: <1441268887-11618-1-git-send-email-ytk.lee@samsung.com> References: <20150903080028.GS21084@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1441268887-11618-1-git-send-email-ytk.lee@samsung.com> Message-ID: <1441269272.3102.3.camel@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am Donnerstag, den 03.09.2015, 17:28 +0900 schrieb Yongtaek Lee: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:24:47AM +0900, Yongtaek Lee wrote: > > > default value of vmalloc_min was set 0xf0000000 for ARM by commit > > > 0536bdf3. But actually vmalloc_min is 0xef800000 not 0xf0000000. > > > > > > VMALLOC_END - (240 << 20) - VMALLOC_OFFSET) > > > 0xff000000 - 0x0f000000 - 0x00800000 = 0xef800000 > > > > > > In case of 768MB ram without CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y, last 8MB could not be > > > allocated. Kernel log also print out warning message as below. > > > "Truncating RAM at 80000000-afffffff to -af7fffff (vmalloc region overlap)." > > > > > > Although it could be solved by state "vmalloc=size" in cmdline but i think > > > it would be better to change default value to 232 from 240. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yongtaek Lee > > > > I fail to see what the problem is here. You're adjusting the size of the > > vmalloc space to accomodate the size of RAM you have. That's not a bug. > > I will explain more about problem. > It could happened with 768MB RAM device and CONFIG_HIGHMEN is not set. > "vmalloc=size" also not stated so that default value of vmalloc_min will be > used to calculate lowmem end address. > before applying patch. > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] [c0] Truncating RAM at 80000000-afffffff to -af7fffff (vmalloc region overlap). > > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] [c0] Memory: 106MB 652MB = 758MB total > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] [c0] Memory: 669892k/669892k available, 108348k reserved, 0K highmem > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] [c0] Virtual kernel memory layout: > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] vector : 0xffff0000 - 0xffff1000 ( 4 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] fixmap : 0xfff00000 - 0xfffe0000 ( 896 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] vmalloc : 0xf0000000 - 0xff000000 ( 240 MB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] lowmem : 0xc0000000 - 0xef800000 ( 760 MB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] modules : 0xbf000000 - 0xc0000000 ( 16 MB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .text : 0xc0008000 - 0xc09bbee0 (9936 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .init : 0xc09bc000 - 0xc0a2b740 ( 446 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .data : 0xc0a2c000 - 0xc0ac4088 ( 609 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .bss : 0xc0ac4088 - 0xc0d3e7b4 (2538 kB) > > after applying patch. > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] [c0] Memory: 106MB 660MB = 766MB total > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] [c0] Memory: 678004k/678004k available, 108428k reserved, 0K highmem > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] [c0] Virtual kernel memory layout: > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] vector : 0xffff0000 - 0xffff1000 ( 4 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] fixmap : 0xfff00000 - 0xfffe0000 ( 896 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] vmalloc : 0xf0800000 - 0xff000000 ( 232 MB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] lowmem : 0xc0000000 - 0xf0000000 ( 768 MB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] modules : 0xbf000000 - 0xc0000000 ( 16 MB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .text : 0xc0008000 - 0xc09bbee0 (9936 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .init : 0xc09bc000 - 0xc0a2b740 ( 446 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .data : 0xc0a2c000 - 0xc0ac4088 ( 609 kB) > [ 0.000000] [0: swapper: 0] .bss : 0xc0ac4088 - 0xc0d3e7b4 (2538 kB) > > As i know "vmalloc=size" is not mandatory so that i think default value of > vmalloc_min is wrong. > So, if we go and apply your logic to a 1GB system we should resize the vmalloc area to 0 bytes in order to avoid RAM truncation without CONFIG_HIGHMEM? Sorry, but the only sane options here are to either live with the truncation, enable CONFIG_HIGHMEM, or set vmalloc size manually. Changing a default value that affects everyone for the benefit of your specific use-case isn't a sane option. Regards, Lucas -- Pengutronix e.K. | Lucas Stach | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |