Re: [PATCH 14/30] memblock: add align parameter to memblock_alloc_node()
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-r...@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. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Re: [PATCH 14/30] memblock: add align parameter to memblock_alloc_node()
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-r...@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 > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
Re: [PATCH 14/30] memblock: add align parameter to memblock_alloc_node()
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-r...@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? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Re: [PATCH 14/30] memblock: add align parameter to memblock_alloc_node()
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
> ---
> 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
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
[PATCH 14/30] memblock: add align parameter to memblock_alloc_node()
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
---
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
