| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:29:13 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: remove MEMORY_HOTPLUG_RESERVE related code
Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:45:49PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> after
>> | commit b263295dbffd33b0fbff670720fa178c30e3392a
>> | Author: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
>> | Date: Wed Jan 30 13:30:47 2008 +0100
>> |
>> | x86: 64-bit, make sparsemem vmemmap the only memory model
>>
>> we don't have MEMORY_HOTPLUG_RESERVE anymore.
>>
>> remove related dead code.
>>
>
> Good spot, this removes a nice amount of code. The changelog could say
> more though, how about?
>
> =====
> Historically, x86-64 had an architecture-specific method for memory hotplug
> whereby it scanned the SRAT for physical memory ranges that could be
> potentially used for memory hot-add later. By reserving those ranges
> without physical memory, the memmap would be allocated and left dormant
> until needed. This depended on the DISCONTIG memory model which has been
> removed so the code implementing HOTPLUG_RESERVE is now dead.
>
> This patch removes the dead code used by MEMORY_HOTPLUG_RESERVE
thanks will use that.
> =====
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/numa_64.h | 3 -
>> arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c | 5 --
>> arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c | 63 +++++++------------------------------
>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 -
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 69 -----------------------------------------
>> 5 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 130 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/numa_64.h
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/numa_64.h
>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/numa_64.h
>> @@ -17,9 +17,6 @@ extern int compute_hash_shift(struct boo
>> extern void numa_init_array(void);
>> extern int numa_off;
>>
>> -extern void srat_reserve_add_area(int nodeid);
>> -extern int hotadd_percent;
>> -
>> extern s16 apicid_to_node[MAX_LOCAL_APIC];
>>
>> extern unsigned long numa_free_all_bootmem(void);
>> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c
>> @@ -272,9 +272,6 @@ void __init setup_node_bootmem(int nodei
>> reserve_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nodeid), bootmap_start,
>> bootmap_pages<<PAGE_SHIFT, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
>> - srat_reserve_add_area(nodeid);
>> -#endif
>> node_set_online(nodeid);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -608,8 +605,6 @@ static __init int numa_setup(char *opt)
>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
>> if (!strncmp(opt, "noacpi", 6))
>> acpi_numa = -1;
>> - if (!strncmp(opt, "hotadd=", 7))
>> - hotadd_percent = simple_strtoul(opt+7, NULL, 10);
>
> Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.txt now needs to be updated to
> remove the documentation on hotadd=.
>
> Instead of ignoring the option, should a warning now be printed saying the
> option is deprecated?
that is dead for 2.6.27 (?), 2.6.28, 2.6.29, ...
guess we could remove that directly...
>
>> #endif
>> return 0;
>> }
>> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/srat_64.c
>> @@ -31,8 +31,6 @@ static nodemask_t nodes_parsed __initdat
>> static nodemask_t cpu_nodes_parsed __initdata;
>> static struct bootnode nodes[MAX_NUMNODES] __initdata;
>> static struct bootnode nodes_add[MAX_NUMNODES];
>> -static int found_add_area __initdata;
>> -int hotadd_percent __initdata = 0;
>>
>> static int num_node_memblks __initdata;
>> static struct bootnode node_memblk_range[NR_NODE_MEMBLKS] __initdata;
>> @@ -66,9 +64,6 @@ static __init void cutoff_node(int i, un
>> {
>> struct bootnode *nd = &nodes[i];
>>
>> - if (found_add_area)
>> - return;
>> -
>> if (nd->start < start) {
>> nd->start = start;
>> if (nd->end < nd->start)
>> @@ -86,7 +81,6 @@ static __init void bad_srat(void)
>> int i;
>> printk(KERN_ERR "SRAT: SRAT not used.\n");
>> acpi_numa = -1;
>> - found_add_area = 0;
>> for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOCAL_APIC; i++)
>> apicid_to_node[i] = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; i++)
>> @@ -182,24 +176,21 @@ acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init(struct
>> pxm, apic_id, node);
>> }
>>
>> -static int update_end_of_memory(unsigned long end) {return -1;}
>> -static int hotadd_enough_memory(struct bootnode *nd) {return 1;}
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_SPARSE
>> static inline int save_add_info(void) {return 1;}
>> #else
>> static inline int save_add_info(void) {return 0;}
>> #endif
>> /*
>> - * Update nodes_add and decide if to include add are in the zone.
>> - * Both SPARSE and RESERVE need nodes_add information.
>> - * This code supports one contiguous hot add area per node.
>> + * Update nodes_add[]
>> + * This code supports one contiguous hot add area per node
>> */
>> -static int __init
>> -reserve_hotadd(int node, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>> +static void __init
>> +update_nodes_add(int node, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>> {
>
> It's now very unclear what the purpose of this function is. I'm guessing it
> should be something like
>
> validate_hotadd_region()
> This validates that the region of memory described by SRAT as suitable
> for use with memory hot-add is sane
>
> What it was for was to validate that the SRAT looked sane and then push out the
> end of the node boundaries so that the memmap would get allocated. However,
> because we are no longer pushing out the node boundaries, is this doing
> anything useful at all any more? For sparsemem, memory-hotadd allocates
> the memmap as it required.
but it does update nodes_add range.
YH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists