Message-Id: <201010140901.31402.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:01:30 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Charles Butterfield <charles.butterfield@...tcentury.com>,
	Stefan Becker <chemobejk@...il.com>,
	"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Bob Picco <bpicco@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Brian Bloniarz <phunge0@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] resources: allocate space within a region from the top down

On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 04:19:42 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmmm.. Instead of that top-down #define, how about making the allocation
> pattern be a flag in the resource (possibly just the root, but perhaps
> per-resource? )
> 
> That sounds much more flexible, and less ugly than that #ifdef. Perhaps more
> importantly, it would allow us to do the whole allocation order dynamically,
> which would be really good if it turns out to not work on all setups. That
> way we could at least have a kernel command line option that we can ask
> people to test, rather than have them have to recompile the whole kernel.

I like the backout switch idea a lot.  I'm not sure it's worth burning a
bit in the resource flags because I hope we can choose bottom-up vs.
top-down choice once per boot, not per-resource, and treat cases where
we need bottom-up as bugs to be fixed.

Anyway, I'll rework this and you can see what you think.

Bjorn

> On Oct 13, 2010 9:16 AM, "Bjorn Helgaas" <bjorn.helgaas@...com> wrote:
> >
> > Allocate space from the top of a region first, then work downward,
> > if an architecture desires this.
> >
> > I think it's too dangerous to do this across the board, because
> > iomem_resource.end is initialized to -1, which is 0xffffffff_ffffffff
> > on 64-bit architectures, and most machines can't address the entire
> > 64-bit physical address space. So this patch is only effective if the
> > architecture defines ARCH_HAS_TOP_DOWN_ALLOC.
> >
> > When we allocate space from a resource, we look for gaps between children
> > of the resource. Previously, we always looked at gaps from the bottom up.
> > For example, given this:
> >
> > [mem 0xbff00000-0xf7ffffff] PCI Bus 0000:00
> > [mem 0xc0000000-0xdfffffff] PCI Bus 0000:02
> >
> > we attempted to allocate from the [mem 0xbff00000-0xbfffffff] gap first,
> > then the [mem 0xe0000000-0xf7ffffff] gap.
> >
> > With this patch, if the architecture defines ARCH_HAS_TOP_DOWN_ALLOC,
> > we allocate from [mem 0xe0000000-0xf7ffffff] first.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
> > ---
> >
> > kernel/resource.c | 70
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
> > index ace2269..9218e8e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/resource.c
> > +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> > @@ -357,8 +357,77 @@ int __weak page_is_ram(unsigned long pfn)
> > return walk_system_ram_range(pfn, 1, NULL, __is_ram) == 1;
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef ARCH_HAS_TOP_DOWN_ALLOC
> > +/*
> > + * Find the resource before "child" in the sibling list of "root"
> children.
> > + */
> > +static struct resource *find_sibling_prev(struct resource *root, struct
> resource *child)
> > +{
> > + struct resource *this;
> > +
> > + for (this = root->child; this; this = this->sibling)
> > + if (this->sibling == child)
> > + return this;
> > +
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Find empty slot in the resource tree given range and alignment.
> > + * This version allocates from the end of the root resource first.
> > + */
> > +static int find_resource(struct resource *root, struct resource *new,
> > + resource_size_t size, resource_size_t min,
> > + resource_size_t max, resource_size_t align,
> > + resource_size_t (*alignf)(void *,
> > + const struct resource *,
> > + resource_size_t,
> > + resource_size_t),
> > + void *alignf_data)
> > +{
> > + struct resource *this;
> > + struct resource tmp = *new;
> > + resource_size_t start;
> > +
> > + tmp.start = root->end;
> > + tmp.end = root->end;
> > +
> > + this = find_sibling_prev(root, NULL);
> > + for (;;) {
> > + if (this && this->end < root->end)
> > + tmp.start = this->end + 1;
> > + else
> > + tmp.start = root->start;
> > + if (tmp.start < min)
> > + tmp.start = min;
> > + if (tmp.end > max)
> > + tmp.end = max;
> > + tmp.start = ALIGN(tmp.start, align);
> > + if (alignf) {
> > + start = alignf(alignf_data, &tmp, size, align);
> > + if (tmp.start <= start && start <= tmp.end)
> > + tmp.start = start;
> > + else
> > + tmp.start = tmp.end;
> > + }
> > + if (tmp.start < tmp.end && tmp.end - tmp.start >= size - 1) {
> > + new->start = tmp.start;
> > + new->end = tmp.start + size - 1;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + if (!this || this->start == root->start)
> > + break;
> > + tmp.end = this->start - 1;
> > + this = find_sibling_prev(root, this);
> > + }
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#else
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Find empty slot in the resource tree given range and alignment.
> > + * This version allocates from the beginning of the root resource first.
> > */
> > static int find_resource(struct resource *root, struct resource *new,
> > resource_size_t size, resource_size_t min,
> > @@ -411,6 +480,7 @@ static int find_resource(struct resource *root, struct
> resource *new,
> > }
> > return -EBUSY;
> > }
> > +#endif
> >
> > /**
> > * allocate_resource - allocate empty slot in the resource tree given range
> & alignment
> >
> 
--
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