[PATCH 2/2] arm64: set MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR according to linear region size

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 18 August 2015 at 19:39, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:04:27PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 18 August 2015 at 12:00, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:34:42AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> The linear region size of a 39-bit VA kernel is only 256 GB, which
>> >> may be insufficient to cover all of system RAM, even on platforms
>> >> that have much less than 256 GB of memory but which is laid out
>> >> very sparsely.
>> >>
>> >> So make sure we clip the memory we will not be able to map before
>> >> installing it into the memblock memory table, by setting
>> >> MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR accordingly.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>
>> >> ---
>> >>  arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h | 8 ++++++++
>> >>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
>> >> index f800d45ea226..44a59c20e773 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/memory.h
>> >> @@ -114,6 +114,14 @@ extern phys_addr_t               memstart_addr;
>> >>  #define PHYS_OFFSET          ({ memstart_addr; })
>> >>
>> >>  /*
>> >> + * The maximum physical address that the linear direct mapping
>> >> + * of system RAM can cover. (PAGE_OFFSET can be interpreted as
>> >> + * a 2's complement signed quantity and negated to derive the
>> >> + * maximum size of the linear mapping.)
>> >> + */
>> >> +#define MAX_MEMBLOCK_ADDR    ({ memstart_addr - PAGE_OFFSET - 1; })
>> >
>> > If we initialised memory_limit to this value and changed early_mem to
>> > use min (i.e. only restrict the limit further), would that avoid the
>> > need to change the of code? It looks like PPC uses
>> > memblock_enforce_memory_limit for similar reasons.
>>
>> Yes, that would be yet another way of doing things. But since Catalin
>> explicitly requested that both checks (i.e., bottom end and top end)
>> occur in the same place, and indicated his preference not to override
>> early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() if we can avoid it, the only way is to
>> hack it in there.
>
> Talking to Will, we decided to go for a quick fix with cc stable that
> does something like:
>
>         memblock_enforce_memory_limit(min(memory_limit, ~PAGE_OFFSET));
>

~PAGE_OFFSET + 1 ?

> Afterwards, we should still sort early_init_dt_add_memory_arch() to get
> the nicer printing since, as it stands, checking that a u64 is bigger
> than ULONG_MAX is pointless on 64-bit.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Catalin