From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97859C6FD1C for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231522AbjCYGmY (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Mar 2023 02:42:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32856 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229674AbjCYGmV (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Mar 2023 02:42:21 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7DEA14EBB for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 23:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EBF060A51 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A743C433D2; Sat, 25 Mar 2023 06:42:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1679726539; bh=ZSKNjtrK9Vf8IKEQOlIlEf2lZ5+KbHask3b4ybdxt2o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oaSo5cqgUt7L5RFDX4Q/ntp75zHOUp2cAwwCYA+CzEc4JY+oPnZjRY/mdPYrn8l6D kuk33rPdK1yq7QKmO39axfUBszPjpGqmEzSwWPc4QPkl2FP6lxYY2JDaEIvcmSShRG kcW8rhb6vtCSwkNxCzWOHuw2d8kKzA9nm1GQrfLBizAubSa/SDH0eW1xzAoPW4FkLx yn2uGjkcajAjn611jS3J1z+NbOFjYEq9f3NgpDJYYKOpIxikx+dsADu4OU9aw+hRry URdV4koMdn6B2PZiglxyt+g3G8t3zopGpQ2O/n+UIKflUCcvRe/heHjDMaZoSZlVsD PDeOLbKcRp8jQ== Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 09:42:06 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Hongbin Ji Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] memblock: Make memblock memblock_dbg info handle overflowing range @base + @size Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 02:25:58PM +0800, Hongbin Ji wrote: > It is just to correct the information displayed by the debugging. > The wrong information display is also a problem, but it is not a > problem that affects the function Please don't top post. Wrong debugging info will be the least of the problems if memblock_add() or membloc_remove() are called with wrong parameters. Please work on cleanups based on code inspection outside of mm/ > Mike Rapoport 于2023年3月25日周六 14:04写道： > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 04:15:13PM +0800, 纪宏宾 wrote: > > > Allow memblock users to specify range where @base + @size overflows, > > > This will cause the address range information in the debug output to > > > be displayed incorrectly. > > > > Is there a real problem you are trying to solve? > > > > > For example, calling memblock_remove(1ULL << PHYS_MASK_SHIFT, > > > ULLONG_MAX) in arch/arm64/mm/init.c, > > > would be displayed as: > > > [ 0.000000] memblock_remove: [0x0001000000000000-0x0000fffffffffffe] > > > arm64_memblock_init+0x24/0x270 > > > but we expect the output: > > > [ 0.000000] memblock_remove: [0x0001000000000000-0xffffffffffffffff] > > > arm64_memblock_init+0x24/0x270 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hongbin Ji > > > --- > > > mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++------- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > > > index 25fd0626a9e7..567b99e4355d 100644 > > > --- a/mm/memblock.c > > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > > > @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ static int __init_memblock > > > memblock_add_range(struct memblock_type *type, > > > int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, > > > int nid, enum memblock_flags flags) > > > { > > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > > > > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] nid=%d flags=%x %pS\n", __func__, > > > &base, &end, nid, flags, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t > > > base, phys_addr_t size, > > > */ > > > int __init_memblock memblock_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > > > { > > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > > > > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > > > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > @@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ static int __init_memblock > > > memblock_remove_range(struct memblock_type *type, > > > > > > int __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > > > { > > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > > > > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > > > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > @@ -854,7 +854,7 @@ void __init_memblock memblock_free(void *ptr, size_t size) > > > */ > > > int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > > > { > > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > > > > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > > > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t > > > base, phys_addr_t size) > > > > > > int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > > > { > > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > > > > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > > > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > @@ -876,7 +876,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t > > > base, phys_addr_t size) > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_PHYS_MAP > > > int __init_memblock memblock_physmem_add(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > > > { > > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > > + phys_addr_t end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > > > > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", __func__, > > > &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > @@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ void __init memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, > > > phys_addr_t size) > > > { > > > phys_addr_t cursor, end; > > > > > > - end = base + size - 1; > > > + end = base + min(size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX - base + 1) - 1; > > > memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pS\n", > > > __func__, &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > kmemleak_free_part_phys(base, size); > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours, > > Mike. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.