On 22/01/2019 15:02, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> On 21/01/2019 18:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> If I understood correctly, the trouble comes from no-map range allocated in
>> early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch().
>>
>> There's indeed imbalance, because memblock_alloc() does kmemleak_alloc(), but
>> memblock_remove() does not do kmemleak_free().
>>
>> I think the best way is to replace __memblock_alloc_base() with
>> memblock_find_in_range(), e.g something like:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> index 1977ee0adcb1..6807a1cffe55 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
>> @@ -37,21 +37,16 @@ int __init __weak
>> early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch(phys_addr_t size,
>> */
>> end = !end ? MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE : end;
>> align = !align ? SMP_CACHE_BYTES : align;
>> - base = __memblock_alloc_base(size, align, end);
>> + base = memblock_find_in_range(size, align, start, end);
>> if (!base)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * Check if the allocated region fits in to start..end window
>> - */
>> - if (base < start) {
>> - memblock_free(base, size);
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> - }
>> -
>> *res_base = base;
>> if (nomap)
>> return memblock_remove(base, size);
>> + else
>> + return memblock_reserve(base, size);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>
> Your patch solves the issue. \o/
[ Add nvidia devs, but drop schowd...@nvidia.com ]
