mirror of
https://github.com/rd-stuffs/msm-4.14.git
synced 2025-02-20 11:45:48 +08:00
5291b6599f
[ Upstream commit 5dbc4cb4667457b0c53bcd7bff11500b3c362975 ] There is a difference in how architectures treat "mem=" option. For some that is an amount of online memory, for s390 and x86 this is the limiting max address. Some memblock api like memblock_enforce_memory_limit() take limit argument and explicitly treat it as the size of online memory, and use __find_max_addr to convert it to an actual max address. Current s390 usage: memblock_enforce_memory_limit(memblock_end_of_DRAM()); yields different results depending on presence of memory holes (offline memory blocks in between online memory). If there are no memory holes limit == max_addr in memblock_enforce_memory_limit() and it does trim online memory and reserved memory regions. With memory holes present it actually does nothing. Since we already use memblock_remove() explicitly to trim online memory regions to potential limit (think mem=, kdump, addressing limits, etc.) drop the usage of memblock_enforce_memory_limit() altogether. Trimming reserved regions should not be required, since we now use memblock_set_current_limit() to limit allocations and any explicit memory reservations above the limit is an actual problem we should not hide. Reviewed-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>