linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] Use 2GB memory block size on large-memory x86-64 systems

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: <20150826041716.GA14102@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:17:16 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] Use 2GB memory block size on large-memory x86-64
 systems


* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:

> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> @@ -390,8 +390,14 @@ int register_mem_sect_under_node(struct memory_block *mem_blk, int nid)
>  	sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_section_nr);
>  	sect_end_pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1;
>  	for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
> -		int page_nid;
> +		int page_nid, scn_nr;
>  
> +		scn_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn);
> +		if (!present_section_nr(scn_nr)) {
> +			pfn = round_down(pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION,
> +					 PAGES_PER_SECTION) - 1;
> +			continue;
> +		}
>  		page_nid = get_nid_for_pfn(pfn);
>  		if (page_nid < 0)
>  			continue;
> @@ -426,10 +432,18 @@ int unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk,
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	nodes_clear(*unlinked_nodes);
>  
> -	sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(phys_index);
> -	sect_end_pfn = sect_start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1;
> +	sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->start_section_nr);
> +	sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_section_nr);
> +	sect_end_pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1;
>  	for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
> -		int nid;
> +		int nid, scn_nr;
> +
> +		scn_nr = pfn_to_section_nr(pfn);
> +		if (!present_section_nr(scn_nr)) {
> +			pfn = round_down(pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION,
> +					 PAGES_PER_SECTION) - 1;
> +			continue;
> +		}

NAK due to lack of cleanliness: the two loops look almost identical - this sure 
can be factored out...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/