On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 17:30 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
:
> @@ -100,8 +180,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock
> memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
> phys_addr_t end, phys_addr_t size,
> phys_addr_t align, int nid)
> {
> - phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
> - u64 i;
> + phys_addr_t ret;
>
> /* pump up @end */
> if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE)
> @@ -111,18 +190,22 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock
> memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
> start = max_t(phys_addr_t, start, PAGE_SIZE);
> end = max(start, end);
>
> - for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
> - this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
> - this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
> + if (memblock_direction_bottom_up()) {
> + /*
> + * MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is 0, which is less than the end
> + * of kernel image. So callers specify MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
> + * as @start is OK.
> + */
> + start = max(start, __pa_symbol(_end)); /* End of kernel image.
> */
>
> - if (this_end < size)
> - continue;
> + ret = __memblock_find_range(start, end, size, align, nid);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> - cand = round_down(this_end - size, align);
> - if (cand >= this_start)
> - return cand;
> + pr_warn("memblock: Failed to allocate memory in bottom up
> direction. Now try top down direction.\n");
Is there any chance that this retry will succeed given that start and
end are still the same?
Thanks,
-Toshi
> }
> - return 0;
> +
> + return __memblock_find_range_rev(start, end, size, align, nid);
> }
>
> /**
--
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/
