From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sunset.davemloft.net (unknown [74.93.104.97]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD632DDF6C for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:25:02 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080815.152501.193746275.davem@davemloft.net> To: michael@ellerman.id.au Subject: Re: bug in lmb_enforce_memory_limit() From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1218713213.10673.17.camel@localhost> References: <20080814.012004.193702132.davem@davemloft.net> <1218713213.10673.17.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Michael Ellerman Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:26:53 +1000 > Perhaps after the first loop we should set memory_limit to equal > lmb_end_of_DRAM(), then the second loop should work as it is. Sounds great. Mind if I push the following to Linus? lmb: Fix reserved region handling in lmb_enforce_memory_limit(). The idea of the implementation of this fix is from Michael Ellerman. This function has two loops, but they each interpret the memory_limit value differently. The first loop interprets it as a "size limit" whereas the second loop interprets it as an "address limit". Before the second loop runs, reset memory_limit to lmb_end_of_DRAM() so that it all works out. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c index 5d7b928..97e5470 100644 --- a/lib/lmb.c +++ b/lib/lmb.c @@ -462,6 +462,8 @@ void __init lmb_enforce_memory_limit(u64 memory_limit) if (lmb.memory.region[0].size < lmb.rmo_size) lmb.rmo_size = lmb.memory.region[0].size; + memory_limit = lmb_end_of_DRAM(); + /* And truncate any reserves above the limit also. */ for (i = 0; i < lmb.reserved.cnt; i++) { p = &lmb.reserved.region[i];