+ Gryagorii, On Tuesday 28 January 2014 01:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:23:02PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 12:12 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h >>> =================================================================== >>> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/bootmem.h >>> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/bootmem.h >>> @@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_vir >>> NUMA_NO_NODE); >>> } >>> >>> +/* Take arch's ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT at first*/ >>> +#include <asm/processor.h> >>> + >>> #ifndef ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT >>> #define ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT 0xffffffffUL >>> #endif >> >> This won't help mostly since the ARM 32 arch don't set >> ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT. >> Sorry i couldn't respond to the thread earlier because of travel and >> don't have access to my board to try out the patches. > > Let's think about this for a moment, shall we... > > What does memblock_alloc_virt*() return? It returns a virtual address. > > How is that virtual address obtained? ptr = phys_to_virt(alloc); > > What is the valid address range for passing into phys_to_virt() ? Only > lowmem addresses. > > Hence, having ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT set to 4GB-1 by default seems to be > completely rediculous - and presumably this also fails on x86_32 if it > returns memory up at 4GB. > > So... yes, I think reverting the arch/arm part of this patch is the right > solution, whether the rest of it should be reverted is something I can't > comment on. > Grygorri mentioned an alternate to update the memblock_find_in_range_node() so that it takes into account the limit.
Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
