linux-kernel - Re: [mm PATCH v5 7/7] mm: Use common iterator for deferred_init_pages and deferred_free

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:   Mon, 12 Nov 2018 07:12:13 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        dave.jiang@...el.com, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, willy@...radead.org,
        vbabka@...e.cz, khalid.aziz@...cle.com, ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, yi.z.zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [mm PATCH v5 7/7] mm: Use common iterator for deferred_init_pages
 and deferred_free_pages

On 11/9/2018 8:13 PM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On 18-11-05 13:20:01, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> +static unsigned long __next_pfn_valid_range(unsigned long *i,
>> +					    unsigned long end_pfn)
>>   {
>> -	if (!pfn_valid_within(pfn))
>> -		return false;
>> -	if (!(pfn & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1)) && !pfn_valid(pfn))
>> -		return false;
>> -	return true;
>> +	unsigned long pfn = *i;
>> +	unsigned long count;
>> +
>> +	while (pfn < end_pfn) {
>> +		unsigned long t = ALIGN(pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages);
>> +		unsigned long pageblock_pfn = min(t, end_pfn);
>> +
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
>> +		count = pageblock_pfn - pfn;
>> +		pfn = pageblock_pfn;
>> +		if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
>> +			continue;
>> +#else
>> +		for (count = 0; pfn < pageblock_pfn; pfn++) {
>> +			if (pfn_valid_within(pfn)) {
>> +				count++;
>> +				continue;
>> +			}
>> +
>> +			if (count)
>> +				break;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		if (!count)
>> +			continue;
>> +#endif
>> +		*i = pfn;
>> +		return count;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>>   }
>>   
>> +#define for_each_deferred_pfn_valid_range(i, start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn, count) \
>> +	for (i = (start_pfn),						     \
>> +	     count = __next_pfn_valid_range(&i, (end_pfn));		     \
>> +	     count && ({ pfn = i - count; 1; });			     \
>> +	     count = __next_pfn_valid_range(&i, (end_pfn)))
> 
> Can this be improved somehow? It took me a while to understand this
> piece of code. i is actually end of block, and not an index by PFN, ({pfn = i - count; 1;}) is
> simply hard to parse. Why can't we make __next_pfn_valid_range() to
> return both end and a start of a block?

One thing I could do is flip the direction and work from the end to the 
start. If I did that then 'i' and 'pfn' would be the same value and I 
wouldn't have to do the subtraction. If that works for you I could 
probably do that and it may actually be more efficient.

Otherwise I could probably pass pfn as a reference, and compute it in 
the case where count is non-zero.

> The rest is good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
> 
> Thank you,
> Pasha
>