[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2901df56-bf0c-4d08-b043-eca294b981f9@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 11:24:56 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: "Li, Tianyou" <tianyou.li@...el.com>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Yong Hu <yong.hu@...el.com>,
Nanhai Zou <nanhai.zou@...el.com>, Yuan Liu <yuan1.liu@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
Yu C Chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Pan Deng <pan.deng@...el.com>,
Chen Zhang <zhangchen.kidd@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memory hotplug/unplug: Optimize zone->contiguous
update when changes pfn range
>>> +};
>>
>> I don't like that the defines don't match the enum name (zone_c... vs.
>> CONT... ).
>>
>> Essentially you want a "yes / no / maybe" tristate. I don't think we
>> have an existing type for that, unfortunately.
>>
>> enum zone_contig_state {
>> ZONE_CONTIG_YES,
>> ZONE_CONTIG_NO,
>> ZONE_CONTIG_MAYBE,
>> };
>>
>> Maybe someone reading along has a better idea.
>>
>
> I agree it's better. Will wait for a day or two to make the change.
>
Yes, good idea. No needs to rush at this point because the merge window
just opened up.
>
>>> +
>>> +void set_zone_contiguous(struct zone *zone, enum
>>> zone_contiguous_state state);
>>> bool pfn_range_intersects_zones(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn,
>>> unsigned long nr_pages);
>>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>> index 0be83039c3b5..b74e558ce822 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>> @@ -544,6 +544,32 @@ static void update_pgdat_span(struct pglist_data
>>> *pgdat)
>>> pgdat->node_spanned_pages = node_end_pfn - node_start_pfn;
>>> }
>>> +static enum zone_contiguous_state __meminit
>>> clear_zone_contiguous_for_shrinking(
>>> + struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long
>>> nr_pages)
>>> +{
>>> + const unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + nr_pages;
>>> + enum zone_contiguous_state result = CONTIGUOUS_UNDETERMINED;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * If the removed pfn range inside the original zone span, the
>>> contiguous
>>> + * property is surely false.
>>> + */
>>> + if (start_pfn > zone->zone_start_pfn && end_pfn <
>>> zone_end_pfn(zone))
>>> + result = CONTIGUOUS_DEFINITELY_NOT;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * If the removed pfn range is at the beginning or end of the
>>> + * original zone span, the contiguous property is preserved when
>>> + * the original zone is contiguous.
>>> + */
>>> + else if (start_pfn == zone->zone_start_pfn || end_pfn ==
>>> zone_end_pfn(zone))
>>> + result = zone->contiguous ?
>>> + CONTIGUOUS_DEFINITELY : CONTIGUOUS_UNDETERMINED;
>>> +
>>
>> See my comment below on how to make this readable.
>>
>>> + clear_zone_contiguous(zone);
>>> + return result;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> void remove_pfn_range_from_zone(struct zone *zone,
>>> unsigned long start_pfn,
>>> unsigned long nr_pages)
>>> @@ -551,6 +577,7 @@ void remove_pfn_range_from_zone(struct zone *zone,
>>> const unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + nr_pages;
>>> struct pglist_data *pgdat = zone->zone_pgdat;
>>> unsigned long pfn, cur_nr_pages;
>>> + enum zone_contiguous_state contiguous_state =
>>> CONTIGUOUS_UNDETERMINED;
>>> /* Poison struct pages because they are now uninitialized
>>> again. */
>>> for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += cur_nr_pages) {
>>> @@ -571,12 +598,13 @@ void remove_pfn_range_from_zone(struct zone *zone,
>>> if (zone_is_zone_device(zone))
>>> return;
>>> - clear_zone_contiguous(zone);
>>> + contiguous_state = clear_zone_contiguous_for_shrinking(
>>> + zone, start_pfn, nr_pages);
>>
>> Reading this again, I wonder whether it would be nicer to have
>> something like:
>>
>> new_contig_state = zone_contig_state_after_shrinking();
>> clear_zone_contiguous(zone);
>>
>> or sth like that. Similar for the growing case.
>>
>
> In both shrinking and growing case, separate the clear_zone_contiguous
> from the logic of zone state check, right?
Yes, I think that makes it look a bit nicer.
--
Cheers
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists