Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mm: simplify calculation of max_pfn_mapped

[Brendan Jackman]

On Tue Jun 2, 2026 at 9:39 PM UTC, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/3/26 06:04, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> ...
>> Luckily, init_memory_mapping() avoids all these conditions. In that
>> case, the return value is just paddr_end. And that value is already
>> present, no need to depend on the confusing return value.
>
> It feels like we should say something about split_mem_range() here. All
> of the guaranteed non-fiddly behavior originates in there, right?

[pasting back the conditions from the commit message for context]
>> but only in these conditions:
>> 
>>    1. There is a mismatch between the alignment of the requested range and
>>       the page sizes allowed by page_size_mask
>>
>>    2. The range ends in a region that is not mapped according to
>>       e820.
>>
>>    3. The range ends in a region that was already mapped (note this case is
>>       particularly fiddly because the return value depends on what level
>>       the existing mapping is at. This is probably a bug, see [0] for
>>       discussion).

split_mem_range() is responsible for excluding point 1, since it returns
the correct page_size_mask. The other two are actually down to the
callers, right? 

So how about for point 1 I mention that in the commit message, then for
points 2 and 3 maybe they should actually be code comments, i.e.
documented as preconditions for calling init_memory_mapping()?

>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init.c b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
>> index ae3e9e0820153..1a6a6fc700bb5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init.c
>> @@ -544,10 +544,11 @@ void __ref init_memory_mapping(unsigned long start,
>>  	memset(mr, 0, sizeof(mr));
>>  	nr_range = split_mem_range(mr, 0, start, end);
>>  
>> -	for (i = 0; i < nr_range; i++)
>> -		paddr_last = kernel_physical_mapping_init(mr[i].start, mr[i].end,
>> -							  mr[i].page_size_mask,
>> -							  prot);
>> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_range; i++) {
>> +		kernel_physical_mapping_init(mr[i].start, mr[i].end,
>> +					     mr[i].page_size_mask, prot);
>> +		paddr_last = mr[i].end;
>> +	}
>
> I guess this is actually:
>
> 	for (i = 0; i < nr_range; i++)
> 		kernel_physical_mapping_init(...);
>
> 	paddr_last = mr[nr_range-1].end;
>
> Right? But what you have is probably just as compact.

Oh, weird. My code might be just as compact but it's confusing, it
should be written your way for sure.