On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > That commit could be reverted. > According to > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/10/123 Do we really need to force the MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE on small systems? What about this patch - which just uses max_pfn to choose the block size. It seems that many systems with large amounts of memory will have a nicely aligned max_pfn ... so they will get the 2GB block size. If they don't have a well aligned max_pfn, then they need to use a smaller size to avoid the crash I saw. -Tony diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c index 3fba623e3ba5..e14e90fd1cf8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c @@ -1195,15 +1195,6 @@ static unsigned long probe_memory_block_size(void) /* start from 2g */ unsigned long bz = 1UL<<31; - if (totalram_pages >= (64ULL << (30 - PAGE_SHIFT))) { - pr_info("Using 2GB memory block size for large-memory system\n"); - return 2UL * 1024 * 1024 * 1024; - } - - /* less than 64g installed */ - if ((max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) < (16UL << 32)) - return MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE; - /* get the tail size */ while (bz > MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE) { if (!((max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) & (bz - 1))) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
