[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181220091228.GB14234@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:12:28 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
vbabka@...e.cz, pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm, page_alloc: Fix has_unmovable_pages for HugePages
On Thu 20-12-18 00:39:18, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:25:28PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> > >- iter = round_up(iter + 1, 1<<compound_order(page)) - 1;
> > >+ skip_pages = (1 << compound_order(head)) - (page - head);
> > >+ iter = round_up(iter + 1, skip_pages) - 1;
> >
> > The comment of round_up says round up to next specified power of 2. And
> > second parameter must be a power of 2.
> >
> > Look skip_pages not satisfy this.
Yes this is true but the resulting numbers should be correct even for
skips that are not power of 2 AFAIC. Or do you have any counter example?
>
> At least alloc_gigantic_page() looks for 1GB range, aligned to that.
> But I see that in alloc_contig_range(), the boundaries can differ.
>
> Anyway, unless I am missing something, I think that we could just
> get rid of the round_up() and do something like:
>
> <--
> skip_pages = (1 << compound_order(head)) - (page - head);
> iter = skip_pages - 1;
> --
>
> which looks more simple IMHO.
Agreed!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists