Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-160991-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <linux-mm@kvack.org> <20240416120635.361838-1-skseofh@gmail.com>
 <20240416120635.361838-2-skseofh@gmail.com> <Zh9l_LpThq9aFUR7@kernel.org>
 <CAATEi5kywwC2yUaYjgs+Gm=4HM5o=KHTqH1ALKJijWE_gge0=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZiFgYWydIwvnpIIY@kernel.org> <CAATEi5kFt8iUeWSkrj_bVTyPO_tfQzG77D719P5dLsr2j6Zkzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAATEi5ksY-v7-LEqNZWFV5hsHiegNEtrh4LpMWOQ=vT7hC0Rng@mail.gmail.com> <Ziy8AsAGZyKCyXX_@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Ziy8AsAGZyKCyXX_@kernel.org>
From: DaeRo Lee <skseofh@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 19:24:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAATEi5=Z0qirM-fyGJL_UPcr7-iyCFtOW9d3XsdN50Tkhpm0iA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memblock: add no-map alloc functions
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: robh@kernel.org, saravanak@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	Daero Lee <daero_le.lee@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2024=EB=85=84 4=EC=9B=94 27=EC=9D=BC (=ED=86=A0) =EC=98=A4=ED=9B=84 5:50, M=
ike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:59:52AM +0900, DaeRo Lee wrote:
> > 2024=EB=85=84 4=EC=9B=94 19=EC=9D=BC (=EA=B8=88) =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 10:=
46, DaeRo Lee <skseofh@gmail.com>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
> > >
> > > In memmap_init_reserved_pages, we mark memblock.reserved as
> > > PageReserved first and mark the memblock.reserved with nomap flag
> > > also.
> > Sorry. This is my mistake. 'memblock.memory with nomap flag' is right.
> >
> > > -> Isn't this duplicated work? (If we add no-map region to
> > > memblock.reserved 'and' mark in memblock.memory..)
> > > So, I think that for the no-map region, we don't need to add to the
> > > memblock.reserved.
> > > This is what we do now in early_init_dt_reserve_memory. the nomap
> > > region is not added to the memblock.reserved.
> > >
> > > In early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch, if 'nomap' is true, we
> > > mark the memblock.memory region as _NOMAP. And if the return value
> > > 'err' is not zero(which is '-ENOMEM' from memblock_isolate_range), we
> > > free the region.
> > > - 'nomap' is true -> memblock_mark_nomap : success -> not free the re=
gion
> > >
> > > : fail -> free the region
> > > And it can be said that we add the region to the memblock.reserved
> > > using memblock_phys_alloc_range and if the region is nomap, then we
> > > can free the region from memblock.reserved. But is it necessary to ad=
d
> > > it to memblock.reserved? We just need the region in memblock.memory t=
o
> > > mark nomap.
> > >
> > > So, here is what I think:
> > > - reserved-memory w/ nomap region -> mark only to memblock.memory
> > > - reserved-memory w/o nomap region -> add to the memblock.reserved
>
> NOMAP and memblock.reserved are semantically different, and at makes sens=
e
> to have a "reserved nomap" node in fdt recorded in both memblock.memory a=
nd
> memblock.reserved.
>
> memblock.reserved represents the memory that is used by firmware or early
> kernel allocation, so reserved memory in fdt should be reserved in memblo=
ck
> as well. I believe it's an oversight that early_init_dt_reserve_memory()
> does not call memblock_reserve() for nomap memory.
>
> NOMAP is a property of a memory region that says that that region should
> not be mapped in the linear map, it's not necessarily in use.

I agree that the NOMAP region should be added to memblock.reserved.

So, I think we need to clean-up memmap_init_reserved_pages, because in
this function we call reserve_bootmem_region for memblock.reserved and
memblock.memory with nomap. We don't need to call
reserve_bootmem_region for nomap.

Regards,.
DaeRo Lee