diff options
author | Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com> | 2021-10-14 13:38:17 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com> | 2021-11-16 12:29:18 +0100 |
commit | 5dbc4cb4667457b0c53bcd7bff11500b3c362975 (patch) | |
tree | 084123005cc4be848fb3f0a1c3d3d0f895b79447 /tools/perf/scripts/python/mem-phys-addr.py | |
parent | 420f48f636b98fd685f44a3acc4c0a7c0840910d (diff) |
s390/setup: avoid using memblock_enforce_memory_limit
There is a difference in how architectures treat "mem=" option. For some
that is an amount of online memory, for s390 and x86 this is the limiting
max address. Some memblock api like memblock_enforce_memory_limit()
take limit argument and explicitly treat it as the size of online memory,
and use __find_max_addr to convert it to an actual max address. Current
s390 usage:
memblock_enforce_memory_limit(memblock_end_of_DRAM());
yields different results depending on presence of memory holes (offline
memory blocks in between online memory). If there are no memory holes
limit == max_addr in memblock_enforce_memory_limit() and it does trim
online memory and reserved memory regions. With memory holes present it
actually does nothing.
Since we already use memblock_remove() explicitly to trim online memory
regions to potential limit (think mem=, kdump, addressing limits, etc.)
drop the usage of memblock_enforce_memory_limit() altogether. Trimming
reserved regions should not be required, since we now use
memblock_set_current_limit() to limit allocations and any explicit memory
reservations above the limit is an actual problem we should not hide.
Reviewed-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/perf/scripts/python/mem-phys-addr.py')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions