Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210130221035.4169-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20210130221035.4169-2-rppt@kernel.org>
 <CAHk-=wjJLdjqN2W_hwUmYCM8u=1tWnKsm46CYfdKPP__anGvJw@mail.gmail.com> <20210131080356.GE242749@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210131080356.GE242749@kernel.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sun, 31 Jan 2021 13:49:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg-qT41Q1WgPUZPC9UmCi6xquk1KE3_yvxORbmDV3os0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86/setup: always add the beginning of RAM as memblock.memory
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Majczak?= <lma@semihalf.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
        "Sarvela, Tomi P" <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:04 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's *particularly* true when the very line above it did a
> > "memblock_reserve()" of the exact same range that the memblock_add()
> > "adds".
>
> The most correct thing to do would have been to
>
>         memblock_add(0, end_of_first_memory_bank);
>
> Somewhere at e820__memblock_setup().

You miss my complaint.

Why does the memblock code care about this magical "memblock_add()",
when we just told it that the SAME REGION is reserved by doing a
"memblock_reserve()"?

IOW, I'm not interested in "the correct thing to do would have been
[another memblock_add()]". I'm saying that the memblock code itself is
being confused, and no additional thing should have been required at
all, because we already *did* that memblock_reserve().

See?

Honestly, I'm not seeing it being a good thing to move further towards
memblock code as the primary model for memory initialization, when the
memblock code is so confused.

              Linus