linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function memblock_alloc_near

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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2016 11:49:43 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Frank Rowand" <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
CC:     Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
        "Tianhong Ding" <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/16] mm/memblock: add a new function
 memblock_alloc_near_nid

Hi, linux-mm folks:
    Can somebody help me to review this patch?
    I ran scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/memblock.c and scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f mm/, but
the results showed me that there is no maintainer.
    To understand this patch should also read patch 11.

On 2016/9/1 14:55, Zhen Lei wrote:
> If HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES is selected, and some memoryless numa nodes are
> actually exist. The percpu variable areas and numa control blocks of that
> memoryless numa nodes must be allocated from the nearest available node
> to improve performance.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/memblock.h |  1 +
>  mm/memblock.c            | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 2925da2..8e866e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ static inline int memblock_get_region_node(const struct memblock_region *r)
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> +phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
> 
>  phys_addr_t memblock_alloc(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align);
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 483197e..6578fff 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,34 @@ again:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 
> +phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_near_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> +{
> +	int i, best_nid, distance;
> +	u64 pa;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +	bitmap_zero(nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> +find_nearest_node:
> +	best_nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> +	distance = INT_MAX;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, nodes_map, MAX_NUMNODES)
> +		if (node_distance(nid, i) < distance) {
> +			best_nid = i;
> +			distance = node_distance(nid, i);
> +		}
> +
> +	pa = memblock_alloc_nid(size, align, best_nid);
> +	if (!pa) {
> +		BUG_ON(best_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE);
> +		bitmap_set(nodes_map, best_nid, 1);
> +		goto find_nearest_node;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pa;
> +}
> +
>  phys_addr_t __init __memblock_alloc_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t max_addr)
>  {
>  	return memblock_alloc_base_nid(size, align, max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 
> 
> .
>