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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952F9C4361B for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACE9225AC for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EACE9225AC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 33D476B0036; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2EEB96B005C; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:19 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1DD616B005D; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:19 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0053.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.53]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D066B0036 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B298D18034F45 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:18 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77591155236.30.point46_050cb3427419 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF3A180B3C83 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:18 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: point46_050cb3427419 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4885 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BE82Ppu081952 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=zuKKm4RVfj7ukCN6BpvAcKiisvQdIFTdLEXR32p3af0=; b=OSYeA/sQm71FO//8rA97Sx1p9bsIpIrdLhgDhY6fELTlcKhFcKJd2+/upB8q7XXreWop 30KmqsVGHvzIK7vC13/gzrmH9jz9gFRHE6nXXaGY5ELXQFFgr6/vGD8n6LuXiGVBC9hc xtM+l+6h0/bQGinXShGBEikGUc4Gneybo+EPEGEcLWDOCkJW8GnJ21Yr3B8usWgB4NXh PPKkp/V/2ij38pt9iyxgw6SwOglvEKJSqrN/31ao5q4Qc5zTjrqs6BI1T9Di40lZFEjM BVLuwhxt/YKq/gFq87XRJg2GmrTleBdvYZG4ZTErt17Vtm9hlsyBwZJ4hRrJn2IKVBJ5 6g== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35e3a6hehr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:16 -0500 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0BE843PI094821 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:16 -0500 Received: from ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (6c.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35e3a6heg9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:06:14 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BE82pGB027398; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:12 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 35cng88yc3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:12 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0BE86A0Y28639554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:10 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C1211C058; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8246611C050; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.60.160]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:06:09 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:06:07 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Heiner Kallweit Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: Warning after "enforce overlap of memory.memblock and memory.reserved" Message-ID: <20201214080607.GB211568@linux.ibm.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343,18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-14_03:2020-12-11,2020-12-14 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=619 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012140055 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 08:37:49PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > Since 950c37691925 ("mm: memblock: enforce overlap of memory.memblock > and memory.reserved") I get the following warning (on x86). > > memblock: reserved range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000001000] is not in memory > memblock: reserved range [0x000000000009f000-0x0000000000100000] is not in memory > > According to comment "Some architectures (e.g. x86) have reserved pages > outside of memblock.memory." it seems there's nothing wrong with it, > then why a warning? Wouldn't debug level be better suited? I think that this is wrong to consider memory reserved by firmware as "not memory", hence the warning. Anyway, this patch needs an update as it breaks arm [1] and maybe other machines. During the update I'll reconsider the printk level. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/127999c4-7d56-0c36-7f88-8e1a5c934cae@collabora.com/ -- Sincerely yours, Mike.