[PATCHv2] mm: Don't offset memmap for flatmem

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:01:40 -0800 Laura Abbott <lauraa at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> Srinivas Kandagatla reported bad page messages when trying to
> remove the bottom 2MB on an ARM based IFC6410 board
> 
> BUG: Bad page state in process swapper  pfn:fffa8
> page:ef7fb500 count:0 mapcount:0 mapping:  (null) index:0x0
> flags: 0x96640253(locked|error|dirty|active|arch_1|reclaim|mlocked)
> page dumped because: PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE flag(s) set
> bad because of flags:
> flags: 0x200041(locked|active|mlocked)
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 3.19.0-rc3-00007-g412f9ba-dirty #816
> Hardware name: Qualcomm (Flattened Device Tree)
> [<c0218280>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0212be8>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24)
> [<c0212be8>] (show_stack) from [<c0af7124>] (dump_stack+0x80/0x9c)
> [<c0af7124>] (dump_stack) from [<c0301570>] (bad_page+0xc8/0x128)
> [<c0301570>] (bad_page) from [<c03018a8>] (free_pages_prepare+0x168/0x1e0)
> [<c03018a8>] (free_pages_prepare) from [<c030369c>] (free_hot_cold_page+0x3c/0x174)
> [<c030369c>] (free_hot_cold_page) from [<c0303828>] (__free_pages+0x54/0x58)
> [<c0303828>] (__free_pages) from [<c030395c>] (free_highmem_page+0x38/0x88)
> [<c030395c>] (free_highmem_page) from [<c0f62d5c>] (mem_init+0x240/0x430)
> [<c0f62d5c>] (mem_init) from [<c0f5db3c>] (start_kernel+0x1e4/0x3c8)
> [<c0f5db3c>] (start_kernel) from [<80208074>] (0x80208074)
> Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint
> 
> Removing the lower 2MB made the start of the lowmem zone to no longer
> be page block aligned. IFC6410 uses CONFIG_FLATMEM where
> alloc_node_mem_map allocates memory for the mem_map. alloc_node_mem_map
> will offset for unaligned nodes with the assumption the pfn/page
> translation functions will account for the offset. The functions for
> CONFIG_FLATMEM do not offset however, resulting in overrunning
> the memmap array. Just use the allocated memmap without any offset
> when running with CONFIG_FLATMEM to avoid the overrun.
> 

I don't think v2 addressed Vlastimil's review comment?