在 2022/6/7 22:49, Ard Biesheuvel 写道:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 14:22, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07.06.22 11:38, Wupeng Ma wrote:
From: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Initrd memory will be removed and then added in arm64_memblock_init() and this
will cause it to lose all of its memblock flags. The lost of MEMBLOCK_MIRROR
flag will lead to error log printed by find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes if
the lower 4G range has some non-mirrored memory.
In order to solve this problem, the lost MEMBLOCK_MIRROR flag will be
reinstalled if the origin memblock has this flag.
Signed-off-by: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 9 +++++++++
include/linux/memblock.h | 1 +
mm/memblock.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
index 339ee84e5a61..11641f924d08 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
@@ -350,9 +350,18 @@ void __init arm64_memblock_init(void)
"initrd not fully accessible via the linear mapping -- please check your bootloader ...\n")) {
phys_initrd_size = 0;
} else {
+ int flags, ret;
+
+ ret = memblock_get_flags(base, &flags);
+ if (ret)
+ flags = 0;
+
memblock_remove(base, size); /* clear MEMBLOCK_ flags */
memblock_add(base, size);
memblock_reserve(base, size);
Can you explain why we're removing+re-adding here exactly? Is it just to
clear flags as the comment indicates?
This should only happen if the placement of the initrd conflicts with
a mem= command line parameter or it is not covered by memblock for
some other reason.
IOW, this should never happen, and if re-memblock_add'ing this memory
unconditionally is causing problems, we should fix that instead of
working around it.
This will happen if we use initrdmem=3G,100M to reserve initrd memory below
the 4G limit to test this scenario(just for testing, I have trouble to boot
qemu with initrd enabled and memory below 4G are all mirror memory).
Re-memblock_add'ing this memory unconditionally seems fine but clear all
flags(especially MEMBLOCK_MIRROR) may lead to some error log.
If it's really just about clearing flags, I wonder if we rather want to
have an interface that does exactly that, and hides the way this is
actually implemented (obtain flags, remove, re-add ...), internally.
But most probably there is more magic in the code and clearing flags
isn't all it ends up doing.
I don't remember exactly why we needed to clear the flags, but I think
it had to do with some corner case we hit when the initrd was
partially covered.
If "mem=" is set in command line, memblock_mem_limit_remove_map() will
remove all memory block without MEMBLOCK_NOMAP. Maybe this will bring the
memory back if this initrd mem has the MEMBLOCK_NOMAP flag?
The rfc version [1] introduce and use memblock_clear_nomap() to clear the
MEMBLOCK_NOMAP of this initrd memblock.
So maybe the usage of memblock_remove() is just to avoid introducing new
function(memblock_clear_nomap)?
Since commit 4c546b8a3469 ("memblock: add memblock_clear_nomap()") already
introduced memblock_clear_nomap(). Can we use this to remove flag MEMBLOCK_NOMAP
to solve this problem rather than bring flag MEMBLOCK_MIRROR back?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20160202180622.GP10166@xxxxxxx/T/#t
.
