On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:24:53PM +0800, Lin Feng wrote:
> The memblock array is in ascending order and we traverse the memblock array in
> reverse order so we can add some simple check to reduce the search work.
>
> Tejun fix a underflow bug in 5d53cb27d8, but I think we could break there for
> the same reason.
>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lin Feng <linf...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 6259055..a710557 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -111,11 +111,18 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock
> memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
> end = max(start, end);
>
> for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
> + /*
> + * exclude the regions out of the candidate range, since it's
> + * likely to find a suitable range, we ignore the worst case.
> + */
> + if (this_start >= end)
> + continue;
> +
> this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
> this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
>
> if (this_end < size)
> - continue;
> + break;
I don't know. This only saves looping when memblocks are below the
requested size, right? I don't think it would matter in any way and
would prefer to keep the logic as simple as possible.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
