LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <>,
	<>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>
Subject: Re: x86: potential ioremap() issues
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:30:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

>> - When ioremap_page_range() fails, remove_vm_area() is used rather
>>   than vunmap() - I think this will cause a 'struct vm_struct' leak.
>indeed, good catch - could you check whether the patch below fixes this? 

Yes, it certainly does. You using it rather than vunmap() makes me notice
other inconsistencies (but harmless in nature): The ioremap_change_attr()
failure case should use the same function, and iounmap() could be
simplified using it, too.

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <>

>> - While ioremap() continues to happily map RAM pages (with a bogus
>>   [see below] WARN_ON_ONCE()), cacheability of the memory is not
>>   being restored in iounmap().
>correct - these are never supposed to be 'true', generally allocated RAM 
>pages - or like we do with AGP where the pages are exclusively owned we 
>restore their cacheability explicitly.

Never supposed to be doesn't mean they really aren't. I think as long as
one permits it, the other should undo its effects. Further more, it would
seem to me that you could easily ioremap() a hot-pluggable (but
unpopulated) memory range, and get into inconsistencies once that
range gets actually populated. Or am I not seeing a safeguard
preventing this?

>> - The check for RAM pages (except for the WARN_ON_ONCE())
>>   continues to be applied only to lowmem pages.
>yes, the biggest constraint from ioremap comes when it applies to pages 
>that are mapped by the kernel. But i guess we could extend this to all 
>things RAM ... the second patch below does this. What do you think? I've 
>queued this up in x86.git#testing as well.

Yes, that's exactly what I would have thought it should look like.

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <>

>> - The WARN_ON_ONCE() itself is applied to the pfn after the
>>   preceding loop finished, i.e. to a pfn that doesn't actually participate
>>   in the operation. Shouldn't it be moved inside the loop?
>i removed the WARN_ON_ONCE() from x86.git a few days ago, it's lined up 
>for the next push.

Great, thanks!


  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-28 14:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-28 12:59 Jan Beulich
2008-02-28 13:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-28 14:30   ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2008-02-29 22:04   ` Oliver Pinter
2008-03-03 10:44     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-03 15:19       ` Oliver Pinter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: x86: potential ioremap() issues' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).