From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: "Hugh Dickins" <hughd@google.com>
Cc: "Andi Kleen" <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
"Yinghai Lu" <yinghai@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86_64: wrong DirectMap kB
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:19:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <506B141F020000780009F19A@nat28.tlf.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1210010116570.6566@eggly.anvils>
>>> On 01.10.12 at 10:37, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> I noticed yesterday that the DirectMap counts at the bottom of x86_64's
> /proc/meminfo are wrong on v3.5 and v3.6. For example, I happen to have
> booted this laptop with mem=700M to run a test, but /proc/meminfo shows
>
> DirectMap4k: 4096 kB
> DirectMap2M: 18446744073709547520 kB
I cannot see such odd effect with "mem="; with I can (for any
value up to around 1G).
> Or if I boot with the full amount of physical memory, the DirectMap
> numbers do not add up to the full amount of physical memory, as they
> used to do on v3.4 and before.
That one I can see how could have happened, in that said patch
went a little too far: Dropping the "pages" increments from
phys_p[um]d_init() is necessary only for the hotplug case (as
otherwise duplicating accounting already done earlier), while
at boot time we would want to do the accounting.
> Whilst I've not yet tried reverting it, I strongly suspect your
> 20167d3421a0 "x86-64: Fix accounting in kernel_physical_mapping_init()".
>
> Either it was a complete misunderstanding, totally bogus, and should
> simply be reverted; or perhaps you really noticed something wrong in
> your code inspection, but didn't get the fix quite right?
The latter, apparently. The patch below should fix both aspects.
Jan
--- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
@@ -386,7 +386,8 @@ phys_pte_init(pte_t *pte_page, unsigned
* these mappings are more intelligent.
*/
if (pte_val(*pte)) {
- pages++;
+ if (!after_bootmem)
+ pages++;
continue;
}
@@ -451,6 +452,8 @@ phys_pmd_init(pmd_t *pmd_page, unsigned
* attributes.
*/
if (page_size_mask & (1 << PG_LEVEL_2M)) {
+ if (!after_bootmem)
+ pages++;
last_map_addr = next;
continue;
}
@@ -526,6 +529,8 @@ phys_pud_init(pud_t *pud_page, unsigned
* attributes.
*/
if (page_size_mask & (1 << PG_LEVEL_1G)) {
+ if (!after_bootmem)
+ pages++;
last_map_addr = next;
continue;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-02 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-01 8:37 Hugh Dickins
2012-10-02 14:19 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2012-10-02 18:16 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-10-01 10:46 Jamie Gloudon
2012-10-01 15:23 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-10-01 15:43 ` Jamie Gloudon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=506B141F020000780009F19A@nat28.tlf.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®