From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7477DC47254 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:16:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EE72068E for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:16:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729084AbgEEUQK (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 16:16:10 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:50524 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727785AbgEEUQK (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 16:16:10 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 045K3V4l125345; Tue, 5 May 2020 16:15:32 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30twhxgdka-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 May 2020 16:15:32 -0400 Received: from m0098394.ppops.net (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 045K3vmL127279; Tue, 5 May 2020 16:15:31 -0400 Received: from ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (63.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30twhxgdj9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 May 2020 16:15:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 045KErIv004025; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:15:29 GMT Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.26.194]) by ppma04ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 30s0g5qmp5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 May 2020 20:15:29 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 045KFQp953281128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 5 May 2020 20:15:26 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75154C04A; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:15:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F714C04E; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:15:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.148.204.113]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:15:24 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 23:15:22 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Vineet Gupta Cc: Mike Rapoport , Guenter Roeck , Rich Felker , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Catalin Marinas , Heiko Carstens , "x86@kernel.org" , Michal Hocko , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Max Filippov , Guo Ren , Ley Foon Tan , "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-hexagon@vger.kernel.org" , Helge Deller , "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King , "linux-csky@vger.kernel.org" , Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/20] mm: free_area_init: allow defining max_zone_pfn in descending order 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-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <88b9465b-6e6d-86ca-3776-ccb7a5b60b7f@synopsys.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-05_10:2020-05-04,2020-05-05 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=5 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005050154 Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@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.