[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1280159163-23386-1-git-send-email-minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:46:03 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: [PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v4
Changelog since v3
o fix my totally mistake in v3
o use set_page_private and page_private
Changelog since v2
o Change some function names
o Remove mark_memmap_hole in memmap bring up
o Change CONFIG_SPARSEMEM with CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
I have a plan following as after this patch is acked.
TODO:
1) expand pfn_valid to FALTMEM in ARM
I think we can enhance pfn_valid of FLATMEM in ARM.
Now it is doing binary search and it's expesive.
First of all, After we merge this patch, I expand it to FALTMEM of ARM.
2) remove memmap_valid_within
We can remove memmap_valid_within by strict pfn_valid's tight check.
3) Optimize hole check in sparsemem
In case of spasemem, we can optimize pfn_valid through defining new flag
like SECTION_HAS_HOLE of hole mem_section.
== CUT HERE ==
Kukjin reported oops happen while he change min_free_kbytes
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg92894.html
It happen by memory map on sparsemem.
The system has a memory map following as.
section 0 section 1 section 2
0x20000000-0x25000000, 0x40000000-0x50000000, 0x50000000-0x58000000
SECTION_SIZE_BITS 28(256M)
It means section 0 is an incompletely filled section.
Nontheless, current pfn_valid of sparsemem checks pfn loosely.
It checks only mem_section's validation but ARM can free mem_map on hole
to save memory space. So in above case, pfn on 0x25000000 can pass pfn_valid's
validation check. It's not what we want.
We can match section size to smallest valid size.(ex, above case, 16M)
But Russell doesn't like it due to mem_section's memory overhead with different
configuration(ex, 512K section).
I tried to add valid pfn range in mem_section but everyone doesn't like it
due to size overhead. This patch is suggested by KAMEZAWA-san.
I just fixed compile error and change some naming.
This patch registers address of mem_section to memmap itself's page struct's
pg->private field. This means the page is used for memmap of the section.
Otherwise, the page is used for other purpose and memmap has a hole.
This patch is based on mmotm-2010-07-19
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Reported-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
---
arch/arm/mm/init.c | 9 +++++++++
include/linux/mmzone.h | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
mm/mmzone.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/init.c b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
index bc98d5d..18b255d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
@@ -238,6 +238,15 @@ static void __init arm_bootmem_free(struct meminfo *mi, unsigned long min,
arch_adjust_zones(zone_size, zhole_size);
free_area_init_node(0, zone_size, min, zhole_size);
+
+ /*
+ * mark pages on mem_map with valid using pg->private.
+ * mem_map on hole will be freed free_memmap later.
+ */
+ for_each_bank(i, mi) {
+ mark_valid_memmap(bank_pfn_start(&mi->bank[i]),
+ bank_pfn_end(&mi->bank[i]));
+ }
}
#ifndef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
index 6e6e626..3b4d16f 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
#include <linux/seqlock.h>
#include <linux/nodemask.h>
#include <linux/pageblock-flags.h>
+#include <linux/mm_types.h>
#include <generated/bounds.h>
#include <asm/atomic.h>
#include <asm/page.h>
@@ -1032,11 +1033,29 @@ static inline struct mem_section *__pfn_to_section(unsigned long pfn)
return __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn));
}
+void mark_valid_memmap(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
+static inline int memmap_valid(unsigned long pfn)
+{
+ struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
+ struct page *__pg = virt_to_page(page);
+ return page_private(__pg) == (unsigned long)__pg;
+}
+#else
+static inline int memmap_valid(unsigned long pfn)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+#endif
+
static inline int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn)
{
+ struct mem_section *ms;
if (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn) >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS)
return 0;
- return valid_section(__nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn)));
+ ms = __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn));
+ return valid_section(ms) && memmap_valid(pfn);
}
static inline int pfn_present(unsigned long pfn)
diff --git a/mm/mmzone.c b/mm/mmzone.c
index f5b7d17..8c3cf57 100644
--- a/mm/mmzone.c
+++ b/mm/mmzone.c
@@ -86,4 +86,37 @@ int memmap_valid_within(unsigned long pfn,
return 1;
}
+
+/*
+ * Fill pg->private on valid mem_map with page itself.
+ * pfn_valid() will check this later. (see include/linux/mmzone.h)
+ * Every arch for supporting hole of mem_map should call
+ * mark_valid_memmap(start, end). please see usage in ARM.
+ */
+void mark_valid_memmap(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+{
+ struct mem_section *ms;
+ unsigned long pos, next;
+ struct page *pg;
+ void *memmap, *mapend;
+
+ for (pos = start; pos < end; pos = next) {
+ next = (pos + PAGES_PER_SECTION) & PAGE_SECTION_MASK;
+ ms = __pfn_to_section(pos);
+ if (!valid_section(ms))
+ continue;
+
+ for (memmap = (void*)pfn_to_page(pos),
+ /* The last page in section */
+ mapend = pfn_to_page(next-1);
+ memmap < mapend; memmap += PAGE_SIZE) {
+ pg = virt_to_page(memmap);
+ set_page_private(pg, (unsigned long)pg);
+ }
+ }
+}
+#else
+void mark_valid_memmap(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+{
+}
#endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL */
--
1.7.0.5
--
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