tree c640528dfb804211fa4106c91f89c077398c204e
parent fb770d48ab8837276872e6cec571413861ee5077
author Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com> 1634211497 +0200
committer Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 1638949505 +0100

s390/setup: avoid using memblock_enforce_memory_limit

[ 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>