From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 20:01:10 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] x86/setup: simplify initrd relocation and reservation Message-ID: <20200802180110.GA86614@gmail.com> References: <20200802163601.8189-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20200802163601.8189-14-rppt@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200802163601.8189-14-rppt@kernel.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Baoquan He , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Borislav Petkov , Catalin Marinas , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Hansen , Emil Renner Berthing , Ingo Molnar , Hari Bathini , Marek Szyprowski , Max Filippov , Michael Ellerman , Michal Simek , Mike Rapoport , Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Mackerras , Paul Walmsley , Peter Zijlstra , Russell King , Stafford Horne , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , Yoshinori Sato , clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, openrisc@lists.librecores.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-h8-devel@lists.sourceforge.jp, x86@kernel.org * Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: Mike Rapoport > > Currently, initrd image is reserved very early during setup and then it > might be relocated and re-reserved after the initial physical memory > mapping is created. The "late" reservation of memblock verifies that mapped > memory size exceeds the size of initrd, the checks whether the relocation > required and, if yes, relocates inirtd to a new memory allocated from > memblock and frees the old location. > > The check for memory size is excessive as memblock allocation will anyway > fail if there is not enough memory. Besides, there is no point to allocate > memory from memblock using memblock_find_in_range() + memblock_reserve() > when there exists memblock_phys_alloc_range() with required functionality. > > Remove the redundant check and simplify memblock allocation. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport Assuming there's no hidden dependency here breaking something: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Thanks, Ingo