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=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 207F8C04AB4 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F22A2086A for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:43:10 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9F22A2086A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4534n83HXmzDqLp for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 14:43:08 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4534lq00GCzDqGS for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 14:41:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4E4XE6u015340 for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:41:54 -0400 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sfm55n6xg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:41:54 -0400 Received: from localhost by e35.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 14 May 2019 05:41:53 +0100 Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.16) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 14 May 2019 05:41:51 +0100 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.233]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x4E4fooX2753004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 May 2019 04:41:50 GMT Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8B7136060; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:41:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0FE13604F; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:41:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.80.230.27] (unknown [9.80.230.27]) by b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 May 2019 04:41:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/nvdimm: Use correct alignment when looking at first pfn from a region To: Dan Williams References: <20190514025512.9670-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 10:11:47 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19051404-0012-0000-0000-000017361693 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011095; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000285; SDB=6.01203028; UDB=6.00631439; IPR=6.00983950; MB=3.00026878; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-05-14 04:41:52 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19051404-0013-0000-0000-00005741C30C Message-Id: <925e41ad-cc57-bc03-a2b6-6913c9e98abf@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-14_02:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905140031 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Linux MM , linuxppc-dev , linux-nvdimm Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 5/14/19 9:59 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:55 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V > wrote: >> >> We already add the start_pad to the resource->start but fails to section >> align the start. This make sure with altmap we compute the right first >> pfn when start_pad is zero and we are doing an align down of start address. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V >> --- >> kernel/memremap.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/memremap.c b/kernel/memremap.c >> index a856cb5ff192..23d77b60e728 100644 >> --- a/kernel/memremap.c >> +++ b/kernel/memremap.c >> @@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ static unsigned long pfn_first(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap) >> { >> const struct resource *res = &pgmap->res; >> struct vmem_altmap *altmap = &pgmap->altmap; >> - unsigned long pfn; >> + unsigned long pfn = PHYS_PFN(res->start); >> >> - pfn = res->start >> PAGE_SHIFT; >> + pfn = SECTION_ALIGN_DOWN(pfn); > > This does not seem right to me it breaks the assumptions of where the > first expected valid pfn occurs in the passed in range. > How do we define the first valid pfn? Isn't that at pfn_sb->dataoff ? -aneesh