Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 07:10:22 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com>
Cc:     "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Mi.Sophia.Wang@...wei.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, zhangshiming5@...wei.com,
        zijun_hu@....com, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
        won.ho.park@...wei.com,
        Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@...il.com>,
        chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn, zhouxiyu@...wei.com, tj@...nel.org,
        weidu.du@...wei.com,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Steve Capper <steve.capper@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: free reserved area's memmap if possiable

On 15 February 2017 at 01:44, zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2017/2/14 17:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> On 14 February 2017 at 06:53,  <zhouxianrong@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> just like freeing no-map area's memmap (gaps of memblock.memory)
>>> we could free reserved area's memmap (areas of memblock.reserved)
>>> as well only when user of reserved area indicate that we can do
>>> this in drivers. that is, user of reserved area know how to
>>> use the reserved area who could not memblock_free or free_reserved_xxx
>>> the reserved area and regard the area as raw pfn usage by kernel.
>>> the patch supply a way to users who want to utilize the memmap
>>> memory corresponding to raw pfn reserved areas as many as possible.
>>> users can do this by memblock_mark_raw_pfn interface which mark the
>>> reserved area as raw pfn and tell free_unused_memmap that this area's
>>> memmap could be freeed.
>>>
>>
>> Could you give an example how much memory we actually recover by doing
>> this? I understand it depends on the size of the reserved regions, but
>> I'm sure you have an actual example that inspired you to write this
>> patch.
>
>
> i did statistics in our platform, the memmap of reserved region that can be
> freed
> is about 6MB. it's fewer.
>

So if you round up the start and round down the end to 8 MB alignment,
as you do in this patch, how much do you end up freeing?

>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/mm/init.c     |   14 +++++++++++++-
>>>  include/linux/memblock.h |    3 +++
>>>  mm/memblock.c            |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>> index 380ebe7..7e62ef8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c
>>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static inline void free_memmap(unsigned long
>>> start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>>>   */
>>>  static void __init free_unused_memmap(void)
>>>  {
>>> -       unsigned long start, prev_end = 0;
>>> +       unsigned long start, end, prev_end = 0;
>>>         struct memblock_region *reg;
>>>
>>>         for_each_memblock(memory, reg) {
>>> @@ -391,6 +391,18 @@ static void __init free_unused_memmap(void)
>>>         if (!IS_ALIGNED(prev_end, PAGES_PER_SECTION))
>>>                 free_memmap(prev_end, ALIGN(prev_end,
>>> PAGES_PER_SECTION));
>>>  #endif
>>> +
>>> +       for_each_memblock(reserved, reg) {
>>> +               if (!(reg->flags & MEMBLOCK_RAW_PFN))
>>> +                       continue;
>>> +
>>> +               start = memblock_region_memory_base_pfn(reg);
>>> +               end = round_down(memblock_region_memory_end_pfn(reg),
>>> +                                MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES);
>>> +
>>
>>
>> Why are you rounding down end only? Shouldn't you round up start and
>> round down end? Or does free_memmap() deal with that already?
>
>
> ok, i could round up start.
>

Yes, but is that necessary? Could you explain
a) why you round down end, and
b) why the reason under a) does not apply to start?

>>
>> In any case, it is good to emphasize that on 4 KB pagesize kernels, we
>> will only free multiples of 8 MB that are 8 MB aligned, resulting in
>> 128 KB of memmap backing to be released.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> +               if (start < end)
>>> +                       free_memmap(start, end);
>>> +       }
>>>  }
>>>  #endif /* !CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP */
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
>>> index 5b759c9..9f8d277 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
>>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ enum {
>>>         MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG        = 0x1,  /* hotpluggable region */
>>>         MEMBLOCK_MIRROR         = 0x2,  /* mirrored region */
>>>         MEMBLOCK_NOMAP          = 0x4,  /* don't add to kernel direct
>>> mapping */
>>> +       MEMBLOCK_RAW_PFN        = 0x8,  /* region whose memmap never be
>>> used */
>>
>>
>> I think we should be *very* careful about the combinatorial explosion
>> that results when combining all these flags, given that this is not a
>> proper enum but a bit field.
>>
>> In any case, the generic memblock change should be in a separate patch
>> from the arm64 change.
>
>
> MEMBLOCK_RAW_PFN and MEMBLOCK_NOMAP can not be set at the same time
>

They should not. But if I call  memblock_mark_raw_pfn() on a
MEMBLOCK_NOMAP region, it will have both flags set.

In summary, I don't think we need this patch. And if you can convince
us otherwise, you should really be more methodical and explicit in
implementing this RAW_PFN flag, not add it as a byproduct of the arch
code that uses it. Also, you should explain how RAW_PFN relates to
NOMAP, and ensure that RAW_PFN and NOMAP regions don't intersect if
that is an unsupported combination.

Regards,
Ard.


>>
>>>  };
>>>
>>>  struct memblock_region {
>>> @@ -92,6 +93,8 @@ bool memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type
>>> *type,
>>>  int memblock_clear_hotplug(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
>>>  int memblock_mark_mirror(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
>>>  int memblock_mark_nomap(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
>>> +int memblock_mark_raw_pfn(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
>>> +int memblock_clear_raw_pfn(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
>>>  ulong choose_memblock_flags(void);
>>>
>>>  /* Low level functions */
>>> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
>>> index 7608bc3..c103b94 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memblock.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
>>> @@ -814,6 +814,30 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_mark_nomap(phys_addr_t
>>> base, phys_addr_t size)
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  /**
>>> + * memblock_mark_raw_pfn - Mark raw pfn memory with flag
>>> MEMBLOCK_RAW_PFN.
>>> + * @base: the base phys addr of the region
>>> + * @size: the size of the region
>>> + *
>>> + * Return 0 on succees, -errno on failure.
>>> + */
>>> +int __init_memblock memblock_mark_raw_pfn(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t
>>> size)
>>> +{
>>> +       return memblock_setclr_flag(base, size, 1, MEMBLOCK_RAW_PFN);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * memblock_clear_raw_pfn - Clear flag MEMBLOCK_RAW_PFN for a specified
>>> region.
>>> + * @base: the base phys addr of the region
>>> + * @size: the size of the region
>>> + *
>>> + * Return 0 on succees, -errno on failure.
>>> + */
>>> +int __init_memblock memblock_clear_raw_pfn(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t
>>> size)
>>> +{
>>> +       return memblock_setclr_flag(base, size, 0, MEMBLOCK_RAW_PFN);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>>   * __next_reserved_mem_region - next function for
>>> for_each_reserved_region()
>>>   * @idx: pointer to u64 loop variable
>>>   * @out_start: ptr to phys_addr_t for start address of the region, can
>>> be %NULL
>>> --
>>> 1.7.9.5
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists