aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/perf/scripts/python/mem-phys-addr.py
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorVasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>2021-10-14 13:38:17 +0200
committerHeiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>2021-11-16 12:29:18 +0100
commit5dbc4cb4667457b0c53bcd7bff11500b3c362975 (patch)
tree084123005cc4be848fb3f0a1c3d3d0f895b79447 /tools/perf/scripts/python/mem-phys-addr.py
parent420f48f636b98fd685f44a3acc4c0a7c0840910d (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