adjust BAT mapping according to max_low_mem
PATCH 1/1 adjust BAT mapping according to max_low_mem
I'm testing highmem by setting max_low_mem to 64MB and using 256MB RAM total (this does not trigger my SCSI bug). I had to change a few things in adjust_total_lowmem to force it to _not_ BAT map of all the RAM. I think the printout of residual is wrong but I'm not sure.
-VAL
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux 2.4 for PowerPC development tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher. # This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet 1.201 -> 1.202
# arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c 1.15 -> 1.16
#
# The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
# --------------------------------------------
# 02/02/08 [email protected] 1.202
# Fix bat calculations to take into account max_low_mem. This maps only the
# max_low_mem RAM with BATs, so you can test the highmem code on machines with # less ram. The printout of "residual" is probably wrong, since it now only # lists the residual lowmem, rather than all residual mem. # -------------------------------------------- # diff -Nru a/arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c --- a/arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c Fri Feb 8 13:29:29 2002 +++ b/arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c Fri Feb 8 13:29:29 2002 @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ #ifdef HAVE_BATS unsigned long bat_max = 0x10000000; unsigned long align; - unsigned long ram = total_lowmem; + unsigned long ram; int is601 = 0;
/* 601s have smaller BATs */
@@ -213,6 +213,16 @@
bat_max = 0x00800000;
is601 = 1;
}
+
+ /* adjust BAT block size to max_low_mem */
+ if (max_low_mem < bat_max)
+ bat_max = max_low_mem;
+
+ /* adjust lowmem size to max_low_mem */
+ if (max_low_mem < total_lowmem)
+ total_lowmem = max_low_mem;
+
+ ram = total_lowmem;
/* Make sure we don't map a block larger than the
smallest alignment of the physical address. */
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Quoted 4 lines · Val Henson
I'm testing highmem by setting
max_low_memto 64MB and using 256MB RAM total (this does not trigger my SCSI bug). I had to change a few things inadjust_total_lowmemto force it to _not_ BAT map of all the RAM. I think the printout of residual is wrong but I'm not sure.
If I'm reading all of the code right, residual at this point should be (total_lowmem (initial value) - ram mapped in BATs), so I think this:
Review
Quoted 9 lines
(quoted diff) +9
-0+ /* adjust BAT block size to max_low_mem */ + if (max_low_mem < bat_max) + bat_max = max_low_mem; + + /* adjust lowmem size to max_low_mem */ + if (max_low_mem < total_lowmem) + total_lowmem = max_low_mem; + + ram = total_lowmem;
Should be:
/* adjust BAT block size to max_low_mem */ if (max_low_mem < bat_max) bat_max = max_low_mem; /* adjust lowmem size to max_low_mem */ if (max_low_mem < total_lowmem) ram = max_low_mem; else ram = total_lowmem; ... printk(KERN_INFO "Memory BAT mapping: BAT2=%ldMb, BAT3=%ldMb, " "residual: %ldMb\n", __bat2 >> 20, __bat3 >> 20, (total_lowmem - ram) >> 20);
Does this sound right?
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Quoted 22 lines · Tom Rini
Quoted 4 lines · Val Henson
I'm testing highmem by setting
max_low_memto 64MB and using 256MB RAM total (this does not trigger my SCSI bug). I had to change a few things inadjust_total_lowmemto force it to _not_ BAT map of all the RAM. I think the printout of residual is wrong but I'm not sure.If I'm reading all of the code right, residual at this point should be (
total_lowmem(initial value) - ram mapped in BATs), so I think this:Review
Quoted 9 lines
(quoted diff) +9
-0+ /* adjust BAT block size to max_low_mem */ + if (max_low_mem < bat_max) + bat_max = max_low_mem; + + /* adjust lowmem size to max_low_mem */ + if (max_low_mem < total_lowmem) + total_lowmem = max_low_mem; + + ram = total_lowmem;Should be:
Quoted 14 lines
/* adjust BAT block size to max_low_mem */ if (max_low_mem < bat_max) bat_max = max_low_mem; /* adjust lowmem size to max_low_mem */ if (max_low_mem < total_lowmem) ram = max_low_mem; else ram = total_lowmem; ... printk(KERN_INFO "Memory BAT mapping: BAT2=%ldMb, BAT3=%ldMb, " "residual: %ldMb\n", __bat2 >> 20, __bat3 >> 20, (total_lowmem - ram) >> 20);
And after actually testing:
printk(KERN_INFO "... (total_lowmem - (__bat2 + __bat3)) >> 20);
If someone else can confirm that the above thinking is right, I'll check in the following patch, which fixes this and the printk for more RAM than BATS && !CONFIG_HIGHMEM
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
===== arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c 1.15 vs edited =====
arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c +17 -5
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@#ifdef HAVE_BATS unsigned long bat_max =0x10000000 ;unsigned long align; -unsigned long ram = total_lowmem; +unsigned long ram;int is601 =0 ;/* 601s have smaller BATs */
@@ -214,6 +214,16 @@ is601 =1 ; } +/* adjust BAT block size to max_low_mem */ +if (max_low_mem < bat_max) + bat_max = max_low_mem; + +/* adjust lowmem size to max_low_mem */ +if (max_low_mem < total_lowmem) + ram = max_low_mem; +else + ram = total_lowmem; +/* Make sure we don't map a block larger than the smallest alignment of the physical address. */ /* alignment of PPC_MEMSTART */
@@ -234,8 +244,9 @@ ram -= __bat3; } -printk (KERN_INFO "Memory BAT mapping: BAT2=%ldMb, BAT3=%ldMb, residual: %ldMb\n" , - __bat2 >>20 , __bat3 >>20 , ram >>20 ); +printk (KERN_INFO "Memory BAT mapping: BAT2=%ldMb, BAT3=%ldMb," +" residual: %ldMb\n" , __bat2 >>20 , __bat3 >>20 , + (total_lowmem - (__bat2 - __bat3)) >>20 );/* On SMP, we limit the lowmem to the area mapped with BATs. * We also assume nobody will do SMP with 601s
@@ -249,8 +260,9 @@if (total_lowmem > max_low_mem) { total_lowmem = max_low_mem;#ifndef CONFIG_HIGHMEM -printk (KERN_INFO "Warning, memory limited to %ld Mb, use CONFIG_HIGHMEM" -" to reach %ld Mb\n" , max_low_mem >>20 , total_lowmem >>20 ); +printk (KERN_INFO "Warning, memory limited to %ld Mb, use " +" CONFIG_HIGHMEM to reach %ld Mb\n" , + max_low_mem >>20 , total_memory >>20 ); total_memory = total_lowmem;#endif /* CONFIG_HIGHMEM */ }
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/