On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> That commit could be reverted.
> According to
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/10/123
Do we really need to force the MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE on small
systems?
What about this patch - which just uses max_pfn to choose
the block size.
It seems that many systems with large amounts of memory
will have a nicely aligned max_pfn ... so they will get
the 2GB block size. If they don't have a well aligned
max_pfn, then they need to use a smaller size to avoid
the crash I saw.
-Tony
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
index 3fba623e3ba5..e14e90fd1cf8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
@@ -1195,15 +1195,6 @@ static unsigned long probe_memory_block_size(void)
/* start from 2g */
unsigned long bz = 1UL<<31;
- if (totalram_pages >= (64ULL << (30 - PAGE_SHIFT))) {
- pr_info("Using 2GB memory block size for large-memory
system\n");
- return 2UL * 1024 * 1024 * 1024;
- }
-
- /* less than 64g installed */
- if ((max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) < (16UL << 32))
- return MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE;
-
/* get the tail size */
while (bz > MIN_MEMORY_BLOCK_SIZE) {
if (!((max_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) & (bz - 1)))
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
