Message ID | 20240716111346.3676969-9-rppt@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | mm: introduce numa_memblks | expand |
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 14:13:37 +0300 Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org> > > By the time numa_emulation() is called, all physical memory is already > mapped in the direct map and there is no need to define limits for > memblock allocation. > > Replace memblock_phys_alloc_range() with memblock_alloc(). > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org> Indeed seems to be after mapping physical memory, so this looks fine. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c index 1ce22e315b80..439804e21962 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa_emulation.c @@ -448,15 +448,11 @@ void __init numa_emulation(struct numa_meminfo *numa_meminfo, int numa_dist_cnt) /* copy the physical distance table */ if (numa_dist_cnt) { - u64 phys; - - phys = memblock_phys_alloc_range(phys_size, PAGE_SIZE, 0, - PFN_PHYS(max_pfn_mapped)); - if (!phys) { + phys_dist = memblock_alloc(phys_size, PAGE_SIZE); + if (!phys_dist) { pr_warn("NUMA: Warning: can't allocate copy of distance table, disabling emulation\n"); goto no_emu; } - phys_dist = __va(phys); for (i = 0; i < numa_dist_cnt; i++) for (j = 0; j < numa_dist_cnt; j++)