linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 21/25] lmb: Add "start" argument to lmb_find

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTimhvJUX2S2eIY8rpw4TnUrDUFicMxEZkLK3hu1N@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 May 2010 16:37:05 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...uxtronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
	lethal@...ux-sh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/25] lmb: Add "start" argument to lmb_find_base()

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> To constraint the search of a region between two boundaries,
> which will be used by the new NUMA aware allocator among others.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
> ---
>  lib/lmb.c |   27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/lmb.c b/lib/lmb.c
> index 84ac3a9..848f908 100644
> --- a/lib/lmb.c
> +++ b/lib/lmb.c
> @@ -117,19 +117,18 @@ static phys_addr_t __init lmb_find_region(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
>        return LMB_ERROR;
>  }
>
> -static phys_addr_t __init lmb_find_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
> +static phys_addr_t __init lmb_find_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
> +                                       phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
>  {
>        long i;
> -       phys_addr_t base = 0;
> -       phys_addr_t res_base;
>
>        BUG_ON(0 == size);
>
>        size = lmb_align_up(size, align);
>
>        /* Pump up max_addr */
> -       if (max_addr == LMB_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE)
> -               max_addr = lmb.current_limit;
> +       if (end == LMB_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE)
> +               end = lmb.current_limit;
>
>        /* We do a top-down search, this tends to limit memory
>         * fragmentation by keeping early boot allocs near the
> @@ -138,13 +137,19 @@ static phys_addr_t __init lmb_find_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phy
>        for (i = lmb.memory.cnt - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
>                phys_addr_t lmbbase = lmb.memory.regions[i].base;
>                phys_addr_t lmbsize = lmb.memory.regions[i].size;
> +               phys_addr_t bottom, top, found;
>
>                if (lmbsize < size)
>                        continue;
> -               base = min(lmbbase + lmbsize, max_addr);
> -               res_base = lmb_find_region(lmbbase, base, size, align);
> -               if (res_base != LMB_ERROR)
> -                       return res_base;
> +               if ((lmbbase + lmbsize) <= start)
> +                       break;
> +               bottom = max(lmbbase, start);
> +               top = min(lmbbase + lmbsize, end);
> +               if (bottom >= top)
> +                       continue;
> +               found = lmb_find_region(lmbbase, top, size, align);
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^
should use bottom  here

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/