Re: [PATCH v3 22/26] mm: numa_memblks: use memblock_{start,end}_of_DRAM() when sanitizing meminfo
Mike Rapoport <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree,gmane.linux.acpi.devel,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.documentation,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.ports.riscv,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.sparc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 01:21:02PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > Mike Rapoport wrote: > > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <[email protected]> > > > > numa_cleanup_meminfo() moves blocks outside system RAM to > > numa_reserved_meminfo and it uses 0 and PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) to determine > > the memory boundaries. > > > > Replace the memory range boundaries with more portable > > memblock_start_of_DRAM() and memblock_end_of_DRAM(). > > Can you say a bit more about why this is more portable? Is there any > scenario for which (0, max_pfn) does the wrong thing? arm64 may have DRAM starting at addresses other than 0. And max_pfn seems to me a redundant global variable that I'd love to see gone. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.