| Message ID | 1536927045-23536-15-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: remove bootmem allocator | expand |
On Fri 14-09-18 15:10:29, Mike Rapoport wrote: > With the align parameter memblock_alloc_node() can be used as drop in > replacement for alloc_bootmem_pages_node() and __alloc_bootmem_node(), > which is done in the following patches. /me confused. Why do we need this patch at all? Maybe it should be folded into the later patch you are refereing here? > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > include/linux/bootmem.h | 4 ++-- > mm/sparse.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/bootmem.h b/include/linux/bootmem.h > index 7d91f0f..3896af2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bootmem.h > +++ b/include/linux/bootmem.h > @@ -157,9 +157,9 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_alloc_from_nopanic( > } > > static inline void * __init memblock_alloc_node( > - phys_addr_t size, int nid) > + phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid) > { > - return memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, 0, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, > + return memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, > BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid); > } > > diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c > index 04e97af..509828f 100644 > --- a/mm/sparse.c > +++ b/mm/sparse.c > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static noinline struct mem_section __ref *sparse_index_alloc(int nid) > if (slab_is_available()) > section = kzalloc_node(array_size, GFP_KERNEL, nid); > else > - section = memblock_alloc_node(array_size, nid); > + section = memblock_alloc_node(array_size, 0, nid); > > return section; > } > -- > 2.7.4 >
On Wed 26-09-18 11:31:27, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 14-09-18 15:10:29, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > With the align parameter memblock_alloc_node() can be used as drop in > > replacement for alloc_bootmem_pages_node() and __alloc_bootmem_node(), > > which is done in the following patches. > > /me confused. Why do we need this patch at all? Maybe it should be > folded into the later patch you are refereing here? OK, I can see 1536927045-23536-17-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com now. If you are going to repost for whatever reason please merge those two. Also I would get rid of the implicit "0 implies SMP_CACHE_BYTES" behavior. It is subtle and you have to dig deep to find that out. Why not make it explicit?
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:36:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 26-09-18 11:31:27, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 14-09-18 15:10:29, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > With the align parameter memblock_alloc_node() can be used as drop in > > > replacement for alloc_bootmem_pages_node() and __alloc_bootmem_node(), > > > which is done in the following patches. > > > > /me confused. Why do we need this patch at all? Maybe it should be > > folded into the later patch you are refereing here? > > OK, I can see 1536927045-23536-17-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com > now. If you are going to repost for whatever reason please merge those > two. Also I would get rid of the implicit "0 implies SMP_CACHE_BYTES" > behavior. It is subtle and you have to dig deep to find that out. Why > not make it explicit? Agree. I'd just prefer to make it a separate patch rather then resend the whole series. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs >
On Wed 26-09-18 16:43:35, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:36:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 26-09-18 11:31:27, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 14-09-18 15:10:29, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > With the align parameter memblock_alloc_node() can be used as drop in > > > > replacement for alloc_bootmem_pages_node() and __alloc_bootmem_node(), > > > > which is done in the following patches. > > > > > > /me confused. Why do we need this patch at all? Maybe it should be > > > folded into the later patch you are refereing here? > > > > OK, I can see 1536927045-23536-17-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com > > now. If you are going to repost for whatever reason please merge those > > two. Also I would get rid of the implicit "0 implies SMP_CACHE_BYTES" > > behavior. It is subtle and you have to dig deep to find that out. Why > > not make it explicit? > > Agree. I'd just prefer to make it a separate patch rather then resend the > whole series. Sure, no objection from me.
diff --git a/include/linux/bootmem.h b/include/linux/bootmem.h index 7d91f0f..3896af2 100644 --- a/include/linux/bootmem.h +++ b/include/linux/bootmem.h @@ -157,9 +157,9 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_alloc_from_nopanic( } static inline void * __init memblock_alloc_node( - phys_addr_t size, int nid) + phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid) { - return memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, 0, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, + return memblock_alloc_try_nid(size, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid); } diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c index 04e97af..509828f 100644 --- a/mm/sparse.c +++ b/mm/sparse.c @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static noinline struct mem_section __ref *sparse_index_alloc(int nid) if (slab_is_available()) section = kzalloc_node(array_size, GFP_KERNEL, nid); else - section = memblock_alloc_node(array_size, nid); + section = memblock_alloc_node(array_size, 0, nid); return section; }
With the align parameter memblock_alloc_node() can be used as drop in replacement for alloc_bootmem_pages_node() and __alloc_bootmem_node(), which is done in the following patches. Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- include/linux/bootmem.h | 4 ++-- mm/sparse.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)