[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52365EA3.8000103@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:28:03 +0800
From: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
CC: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, rjw@...k.pl, lenb@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, trenn@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org,
jiang.liu@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com,
gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com,
lwoodman@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
prarit@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] memblock: Improve memblock to support allocation
from lower address.
Hello toshi-san,
On 09/14/2013 05:53 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 17:30 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> :
>> @@ -100,8 +180,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
>> phys_addr_t end, phys_addr_t size,
>> phys_addr_t align, int nid)
>> {
>> - phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
>> - u64 i;
>> + phys_addr_t ret;
>>
>> /* pump up @end */
>> if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE)
>> @@ -111,18 +190,22 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
>> start = max_t(phys_addr_t, start, PAGE_SIZE);
>> end = max(start, end);
>>
>> - for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
>> - this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
>> - this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
>> + if (memblock_direction_bottom_up()) {
>> + /*
>> + * MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is 0, which is less than the end
>> + * of kernel image. So callers specify MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
>> + * as @start is OK.
>> + */
>> + start = max(start, __pa_symbol(_end)); /* End of kernel image. */
>>
>> - if (this_end < size)
>> - continue;
>> + ret = __memblock_find_range(start, end, size, align, nid);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>>
>> - cand = round_down(this_end - size, align);
>> - if (cand >= this_start)
>> - return cand;
>> + pr_warn("memblock: Failed to allocate memory in bottom up direction. Now try top down direction.\n");
>
> Is there any chance that this retry will succeed given that start and
> end are still the same?
Thanks for pointing this. We've made a mistake here. If the original start
is less than __pa_symbol(_end), and if the bottom up search fails, then
the top down search deserves a try with the original start argument.
>
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
>
>
>> }
>> - return 0;
>> +
>> + return __memblock_find_range_rev(start, end, size, align, nid);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>
>
>
--
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei
--
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