linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 08/10] mm/memory_hotplug: Don't check for "all holes" in shrink_zone

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200205233051.GG8965@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:30:51 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/10] mm/memory_hotplug: Don't check for "all holes"
 in shrink_zone_span()

On 02/06/20 at 07:26am, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 07:08:26AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >On 02/06/20 at 06:56am, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:48:11PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> >Hi Wei Yang,
> >> >
> >> >On 02/05/20 at 05:59pm, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> >> >diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> >> >> >index f294918f7211..8dafa1ba8d9f 100644
> >> >> >--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> >> >> >+++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> >> >> >@@ -393,6 +393,9 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> >> >> > 		if (pfn) {
> >> >> > 			zone->zone_start_pfn = pfn;
> >> >> > 			zone->spanned_pages = zone_end_pfn - pfn;
> >> >> >+		} else {
> >> >> >+			zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
> >> >> >+			zone->spanned_pages = 0;
> >> >> > 		}
> >> >> > 	} else if (zone_end_pfn == end_pfn) {
> >> >> > 		/*
> >> >> >@@ -405,34 +408,11 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> >> >> > 					       start_pfn);
> >> >> > 		if (pfn)
> >> >> > 			zone->spanned_pages = pfn - zone_start_pfn + 1;
> >> >> >+		else {
> >> >> >+			zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
> >> >> >+			zone->spanned_pages = 0;
> >> >> >+		}
> >> >> > 	}
> >> >> 
> >> >> If it is me, I would like to take out these two similar logic out.
> >> >
> >> >I also like this style. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> For example:
> >> >> 
> >> >> 	if () {
> >> >> 	} else if () {
> >> >> 	} else {
> >> >> 		goto out;
> >> >Here the last else is unnecessary, right?
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I am afraid not.
> >> 
> >> If the range is not the first or last, we would leave pfn not initialized.
> >
> >Ah, you are right. I forgot that one. Then pfn can be assigned the
> >zone_start_pfn as the old code. Then the following logic is the same
> >as the original code, find_smallest_section_pfn()/find_biggest_section_pfn() 
> >have done the iteration the old for loop was doing.
> >
> >	unsigned long pfn = zone_start_pfn;	
> >	if () {
> >	} else if () {
> >	} 
> >
> >	/* The zone has no valid section */
> >	if (!pfn) {
> >        	zone->zone_start_pfn = 0;
> >        	zone->spanned_pages = 0;
> >	}
> 
> This one look better :-)

Thanks for your confirmation, I will make one patch like this and post.