From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f201.google.com (mail-pl1-f201.google.com [209.85.214.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C67CCEBE for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 01:54:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740534842; cv=none; b=S0FdDNeT925uwodUtCFDPjCCpRkhFHXSnsJ7HfNq4QsF8eQDP9yxjzxwlu28zTcqGeBHFBWcGr7R8a6MPlC+PTph7bJV9SeHI09yui2NHEdNX+bNhAZILEm//Kvjof1zCyCQTFpZ1QHbtlYriag7poohVnV76EAOUg/LUq8NCec= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740534842; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TMOCx62dTFFxp0Ei0PiOWoSAdlVlJQXsVWSIqOsW1JM=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc: Content-Type; b=dE7tz0goyzO0BPwUB8XWnMbNlpcKKtR1v+d0Szbr1duLfI1G0y8NW3YmGz95yrzluD9zTkpigdxgGN/PoKDhuTbDWg9UsAUlOWQd5m7EFPT7ivu2hreT0rmaGiUDsUXTWce58kL43JMSSu+nyxnHnvWpKX2wiVJC0NQ9lVAzV04= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--changyuanl.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=IxBcWrj3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--changyuanl.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="IxBcWrj3" Received: by mail-pl1-f201.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-220d8599659so115989395ad.0 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:54:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1740534840; x=1741139640; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:mime-version:in-reply-to:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WEgQbAyN812Od1PLDKL03NyhRQA8kQhgcIrLRcSGxlQ=; b=IxBcWrj3X2hOWXGwU5vk6qkIK/76Ib6n0VwlfOnyuQTKA5WfxWqLSC1Zi04EHSEu0e eAl8BPoETBvKfZbC0c4+DAsy64tmI+K9teVLjOE+vt4l+4BJQ31vvuf8hWVOQTOcVpWT eRPXSzq0vx+gB69x2fqTjG+rENavIuyuBUJhXKNF1DxcEvJGperr5TdHYbPp9CON/ZqJ Mp1YmrirpS8AS3pvA20HCq7mqxHA+v4+fzwlJeKpJFc5w+/qh9Yj7SPMq79FALqrnY4r mxsE6/r9rPJf0sY1qHeTUfC1pKByRLeFmJh1X8rol3kklc5LC2wBA04QWVc1HCfxB+TK o/Cw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740534840; x=1741139640; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:mime-version:in-reply-to:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WEgQbAyN812Od1PLDKL03NyhRQA8kQhgcIrLRcSGxlQ=; b=dz/s0qyRjU28ZyAuugJq529DzBo7pUgDGdMH5Vh9wsHqKtICEj3oYD48yMbA3W+rYN FfOgwTXhafhkx7eTy/2PaGRVCXG5ny7fHits+CL2RzHNGIWBPctNQBejOzvta7UY0lZU FJEwtoR5T8yPzs7iWHdKu0aNoRn3nVu+XDnmV9sFQDur+I9R0PMfD6TbO6Y0kXREXExD +IWFCXNAIOGJyBMfmB9lKeyGMmTbYWDM5BgaTDr+pRNccijMyEA3JjQauiZHmNBi63MV Zdcz/hP/T1B1s/8b1IYQs5tgMAihC0sCSMhUbUeKKY6OUbRRdFwnYOzBtr+dme2lk9/l LEIA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXLkTN+GyiIJbndSl1mO2a3Qe0/9Q+UTnbXF9MzuJ0h59TXVngC6Fuve4kcGsHdzlyJNzXfL9DZi5bs@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxDG21bPvBL6s8UCe3BFQ31/guM8JNNaDfx2NwWOO8qgMwerrUX 8vP9SBp/6qZsI8YOgvdCoqy5pxqSgPeyYiiKz1KBtFIzBRd4jyMBNqE5iCvvp++LsHoLDx7j1Yg Sjgk4x0bPKQN/GwxWSw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFkznZMkNBk5de2vOfANCIGfGmFUq4ZoIai/G7n3JkeCyYN8XDtQ2NLIWeTlmgvn0M2N7vBP6JVrlIIeeRX X-Received: from pfbna17.prod.google.com ([2002:a05:6a00:3e11:b0:732:502c:4a0f]) (user=changyuanl job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a05:6a00:2e1e:b0:725:df1a:285 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7348bdd003bmr2703166b3a.12.1740534840070; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:54:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:53:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20250206132754.2596694-3-rppt@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.48.1.711.g2feabab25a-goog Message-ID: <20250226015342.2136669-1-changyuanl@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/14] memblock: add MEMBLOCK_RSRV_KERN flag From: Changyuan Lyu To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Changyuan Lyu , Alexander Graf , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Anthony Yznaga , Arnd Bergmann , Ashish Kalra , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Borislav Petkov , Catalin Marinas , Dave Hansen , David Woodhouse , Eric Biederman , Ingo Molnar , James Gowans , Jonathan Corbet , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Mark Rutland , Paolo Bonzini , Pasha Tatashin , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Pratyush Yadav , Rob Herring , Rob Herring , Saravana Kannan , Stanislav Kinsburskii , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , Tom Lendacky , Usama Arif , Will Deacon , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Mike, On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:27:42 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" > > to denote areas that were reserved for kernel use either directly with > memblock_reserve_kern() or via memblock allocations. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) > --- > include/linux/memblock.h | 16 +++++++++++++++- > mm/memblock.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h > index e79eb6ac516f..65e274550f5d 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > ...... > @@ -116,7 +117,19 @@ int memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, int nid, > int memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > int memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > int memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > -int memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > +int __memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, int nid, > + enum memblock_flags flags); > + > +static __always_inline int memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > +{ > + return __memblock_reserve(base, size, NUMA_NO_NODE, 0); Without this patch `memblock_reserve` eventually calls `memblock_add_range` with `MAX_NUMNODES`, but with this patch, `memblock_reserve` calls `memblock_add_range` with `NUMA_NO_NODE`. Is it intended or an accidental typo? Thanks! > ...... > > -int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > +int __init_memblock __memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, > + int nid, enum memblock_flags flags) > { > phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > - memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > - &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > + memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] nid=%d flags=%x %pS\n", __func__, > + &base, &end, nid, flags, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > - return memblock_add_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size, MAX_NUMNODES, 0); Originally `memblock_reserve` calls `memblock_add_range` with `MAX_NUMNODES`, See my comments above. Best, Changyuan