[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180506134814.GB7362@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 06:48:14 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Huaisheng HS1 Ye <yehs1@...ovo.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"pasha.tatashin@...cle.com" <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
"alexander.levin@...izon.com" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp"
<penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
"colyli@...e.de" <colyli@...e.de>,
NingTing Cheng <chengnt@...ovo.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 2/3] include/linux/gfp.h: use unsigned
int in gfp_zone
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:32:15AM +0000, Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> This idea is great, we can replace GFP_ZONE_TABLE and GFP_ZONE_BAD with it.
> I have realized it preliminarily based on your code and tested it on a 2 sockets platform. Fortunately, we got a positive test result.
Great!
> I made some adjustments for __GFP_HIGHMEM, this flag is special than others, because the return result of gfp_zone has two possibilities, which depend on ___GFP_MOVABLE has been enabled or disabled.
> When ___GFP_MOVABLE has been enabled, ZONE_MOVABLE shall be returned. When disabled, OPT_ZONE_HIGHMEM shall be used.
>
> #define __GFP_DMA ((__force gfp_t)OPT_ZONE_DMA ^ ZONE_NORMAL)
> #define __GFP_HIGHMEM ((__force gfp_t)ZONE_MOVABLE ^ ZONE_NORMAL)
I'm not sure this is right ... Let me think about this a little.
> #define __GFP_DMA32 ((__force gfp_t)OPT_ZONE_DMA32 ^ ZONE_NORMAL)
> #define __GFP_MOVABLE ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_MOVABLE) /* ZONE_MOVABLE allowed */
> #define GFP_ZONEMASK ((__force gfp_t)___GFP_ZONE_MASK | ___GFP_MOVABLE)
>
> The present situation is that, based on this change, the bits of flags, __GFP_DMA and __GFP_HIGHMEM and __GFP_DMA32, have been encoded.
> That is totally different from existing code, you know in kernel scope, there are many drivers or subsystems use these flags directly to realize bit manipulations like this below,
> swiotlb-xen.c (drivers\xen): flags &= ~(__GFP_DMA | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> extent_io.c (fs\btrfs): mask &= ~(__GFP_DMA32|__GFP_HIGHMEM);
>
> Because of these flags have been encoded, the above operations can cause problem.
> I am trying to get a solution to resolve it. Any progress will be reported.
These users probably want:
flags &= GFP_RECLAIM_MASK;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists