| Message ID | 1347385155-11643-18-git-send-email-cyril@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Cyril Chemparathy wrote: > This patch cleans up the highmem sanity check code by simplifying the range > checks with a pre-calculated size_limit. This patch should otherwise have no > functional impact on behavior. > > This patch also removes a redundant (bank->start < vmalloc_limit) check, since > this is already covered by the !highmem condition. > > Signed-off-by: Cyril Chemparathy <cyril@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Andrianov <vitalya@ti.com> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm/mm/mmu.c | 19 +++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > index 6c35483..50d9df5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c > @@ -917,10 +917,15 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) > > for (i = 0, j = 0; i < meminfo.nr_banks; i++) { > struct membank *bank = &meminfo.bank[j]; > + phys_addr_t size_limit; > + > *bank = meminfo.bank[i]; > + size_limit = bank->size; > > if (bank->start >= vmalloc_limit) > highmem = 1; > + else > + size_limit = vmalloc_limit - bank->start; > > bank->highmem = highmem; > > @@ -929,8 +934,7 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) > * Split those memory banks which are partially overlapping > * the vmalloc area greatly simplifying things later. > */ > - if (!highmem && bank->start < vmalloc_limit && > - bank->size > vmalloc_limit - bank->start) { > + if (!highmem && bank->size > size_limit) { > if (meminfo.nr_banks >= NR_BANKS) { > printk(KERN_CRIT "NR_BANKS too low, " > "ignoring high memory\n"); > @@ -939,12 +943,12 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) > (meminfo.nr_banks - i) * sizeof(*bank)); > meminfo.nr_banks++; > i++; > - bank[1].size -= vmalloc_limit - bank->start; > + bank[1].size -= size_limit; > bank[1].start = vmalloc_limit; > bank[1].highmem = highmem = 1; > j++; > } > - bank->size = vmalloc_limit - bank->start; > + bank->size = size_limit; > } > #else > /* > @@ -962,14 +966,13 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) > * Check whether this memory bank would partially overlap > * the vmalloc area. > */ > - if (bank->start + bank->size > vmalloc_limit) > - unsigned long newsize = vmalloc_limit - bank->start; > + if (bank->size > size_limit) { > printk(KERN_NOTICE "Truncating RAM at %.8llx-%.8llx " > "to -%.8llx (vmalloc region overlap).\n", > (unsigned long long)bank->start, > (unsigned long long)bank->start + bank->size - 1, > - (unsigned long long)bank->start + newsize - 1); > - bank->size = newsize; > + (unsigned long long)bank->start + size_limit - 1); > + bank->size = size_limit; > } > #endif > if (!bank->highmem && bank->start + bank->size > arm_lowmem_limit) > -- > 1.7.9.5 >
On 9/21/2012 2:42 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Cyril Chemparathy wrote: > >> This patch cleans up the highmem sanity check code by simplifying the range >> checks with a pre-calculated size_limit. This patch should otherwise have no >> functional impact on behavior. >> >> This patch also removes a redundant (bank->start < vmalloc_limit) check, since >> this is already covered by the !highmem condition. >> >> Signed-off-by: Cyril Chemparathy <cyril@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Andrianov <vitalya@ti.com> > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> > Thanks, Nico. Could you please take another peek at patch 05/17 (support 64-bit virt_to_phys patching)? You had reviewed it in an earlier posting, but I've had to tweak the code to optimize the compiler generated inline expansion code. Patch 14/17 (accomodate >32-bit addresses for page table base) could use some attention as well. The same goes with 12/17 (define ARCH_LOW_ADDRESS_LIMIT for bootmem), if you could.
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c index 6c35483..50d9df5 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c @@ -917,10 +917,15 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) for (i = 0, j = 0; i < meminfo.nr_banks; i++) { struct membank *bank = &meminfo.bank[j]; + phys_addr_t size_limit; + *bank = meminfo.bank[i]; + size_limit = bank->size; if (bank->start >= vmalloc_limit) highmem = 1; + else + size_limit = vmalloc_limit - bank->start; bank->highmem = highmem; @@ -929,8 +934,7 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) * Split those memory banks which are partially overlapping * the vmalloc area greatly simplifying things later. */ - if (!highmem && bank->start < vmalloc_limit && - bank->size > vmalloc_limit - bank->start) { + if (!highmem && bank->size > size_limit) { if (meminfo.nr_banks >= NR_BANKS) { printk(KERN_CRIT "NR_BANKS too low, " "ignoring high memory\n"); @@ -939,12 +943,12 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) (meminfo.nr_banks - i) * sizeof(*bank)); meminfo.nr_banks++; i++; - bank[1].size -= vmalloc_limit - bank->start; + bank[1].size -= size_limit; bank[1].start = vmalloc_limit; bank[1].highmem = highmem = 1; j++; } - bank->size = vmalloc_limit - bank->start; + bank->size = size_limit; } #else /* @@ -962,14 +966,13 @@ void __init sanity_check_meminfo(void) * Check whether this memory bank would partially overlap * the vmalloc area. */ - if (bank->start + bank->size > vmalloc_limit) - unsigned long newsize = vmalloc_limit - bank->start; + if (bank->size > size_limit) { printk(KERN_NOTICE "Truncating RAM at %.8llx-%.8llx " "to -%.8llx (vmalloc region overlap).\n", (unsigned long long)bank->start, (unsigned long long)bank->start + bank->size - 1, - (unsigned long long)bank->start + newsize - 1); - bank->size = newsize; + (unsigned long long)bank->start + size_limit - 1); + bank->size = size_limit; } #endif if (!bank->highmem && bank->start + bank->size > arm_lowmem_limit)