From: Vasily Gorbik gor@linux.ibm.com
[ 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 --- arch/s390/kernel/setup.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c index f661f176966f5..9a0316a067a11 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c @@ -841,9 +841,6 @@ static void __init setup_memory(void) storage_key_init_range(reg->base, reg->base + reg->size); } psw_set_key(PAGE_DEFAULT_KEY); - - /* Only cosmetics */ - memblock_enforce_memory_limit(memblock_end_of_DRAM()); }
/*