On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 03:54:48PM -0700, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
> From: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> After new memory blocks have been hotplugged, max_pfn and max_low_pfn
> needs updating to reflect on new PFNs being hot added to system.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Goldsworthy <quic_cgoldswo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index cfd9deb..fd85b51 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -1499,6 +1499,11 @@ int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size,
> if (ret)
> __remove_pgd_mapping(swapper_pg_dir,
> __phys_to_virt(start), size);
> + else {
> + max_pfn = PFN_UP(start + size);
> + max_low_pfn = max_pfn;
> + }
We use 'max_pfn' as part of the argument to set_max_mapnr(). Does that need
updating as well?
Do we have sufficient locking to ensure nobody is looking at max_pfn or
max_low_pfn while we update them?
Will
