[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170105112407.GU4930@rric.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:24:07 +0100
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@...ium.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: mm: enable CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE for NUMA
On 04.01.17 14:02:23, Will Deacon wrote:
> Using early_pfn_valid feels like a bodge to me, since having pfn_valid
> return false for something that early_pfn_valid says is valid (and is
> therefore initialised in the memmap) makes the NOMAP semantics even more
> confusing.
The concern I have had with HOLES_IN_ZONE is that it enables
pfn_valid_within() for arm64. This means that each pfn of a section is
checked which is done only once for the section otherwise. With up to
2^18 pages per section we traverse the memblock list by that factor
more often. There could be a performance regression. I haven't numbers
yet, since the fix causes another kernel crash. And, this is the next
problem I have. The crash doesn't happen otherwise. So, either it
uncovers another bug or the fix is incomplete. Though the changes look
like it should work. This needs more investigation.
-Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists