On 2/8/21 5:24 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> Hi：
> On 2021/2/9 8:45, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 2/8/21 12:24 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> We can use helper huge_page_size() to get the hugepage size directly to
>>> simplify the code slightly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmia...@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 14 ++++++--------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> index 18628f8dbfb0..6cdb59d8f663 100644
>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> @@ -3199,7 +3199,7 @@ void __init hugetlb_add_hstate(unsigned int order)
>>> BUG_ON(order == 0);
>>> h = &hstates[hugetlb_max_hstate++];
>>> h->order = order;
>>> - h->mask = ~((1ULL << (order + PAGE_SHIFT)) - 1);
>>> + h->mask = ~(huge_page_size(h) - 1);
>>> for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; ++i)
>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&h->hugepage_freelists[i]);
>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&h->hugepage_activelist);
>>> @@ -3474,7 +3474,7 @@ void hugetlb_report_meminfo(struct seq_file *m)
>>> for_each_hstate(h) {
>>> unsigned long count = h->nr_huge_pages;
>>>
>>> - total += (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) * count;
>>> + total += huge_page_size(h) * count;
>>>
>>> if (h == &default_hstate)
>>> seq_printf(m,
>>> @@ -3487,10 +3487,10 @@ void hugetlb_report_meminfo(struct seq_file *m)
>>> h->free_huge_pages,
>>> h->resv_huge_pages,
>>> h->surplus_huge_pages,
>>> - (PAGE_SIZE << huge_page_order(h)) / 1024);
>>> + huge_page_size(h) / SZ_1K);
>>> }
>>>
>>> - seq_printf(m, "Hugetlb: %8lu kB\n", total / 1024);
>>> + seq_printf(m, "Hugetlb: %8lu kB\n", total / SZ_1K);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int hugetlb_report_node_meminfo(char *buf, int len, int nid)
>>> @@ -3524,7 +3524,7 @@ void hugetlb_show_meminfo(void)
>>> h->nr_huge_pages_node[nid],
>>> h->free_huge_pages_node[nid],
>>> h->surplus_huge_pages_node[nid],
>>> - 1UL << (huge_page_order(h) + PAGE_SHIFT - 10));
>>> + huge_page_size(h) >> 10);
>>
>> Should we change this to
>>
>> huge_page_size(h) / SZ_1K);
>>> as in hugetlb_report_meminfo above? Or, is that one where it takes an
>> additional instruction to do the divide as opposed to the shift? I would>
>> rather add the instruction and keep everything consistent.
>>
>
> Yes, it takes an additional instruction to do the divide as opposed to the
> shift. So I did not
> change this. But it seems keeping everything consistent in a function is more
> important. So should
> I send a V2 to change this or Andrew would kindly handle this ?
I would go ahead and put together a v2 and let Andrew decide how he wants
to handle it. You can include,
Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.krav...@oracle.com>
Thanks
--
Mike Kravetz
