On 29.09.21 12:42, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:29:32PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 29.09.21 12:10, Will Deacon wrote:
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?
Only the write side is protected by memory hotplug locking. The read side is
lockless -- just like all of the other pfn_to_online_page() machinery.
Hmm. So the readers can see one of the variables updated but the other one
stale?
Yes, just like it has been on x86-64 for a long time:
arch/x86/mm/init_64.c:update_end_of_memory_vars()
Not sure if anyone really cares about slightly delayed updates while
memory is getting hotplugged. The users that I am aware of don't care.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
