Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:55:13 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] mm: node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() |
| |
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: > > Hi Yinghai, > > > > > > > > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > >> > > >> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > so i very much agree that your changes are cleaner, i just wanted to > > >> > > have one that has all the fixes included. > > >> > > > >> > I had planned this to be another patch because there are more then one > > >> > boundary check I wanted to tighten. I can merge them though if you > > >> > like. > > >> > > >> no, better to have them in separate patches. > > >> > > >> > > Would you like to post a patch against current -git or should i > > >> > > extract the cleaner reserve_bootmem() from your previous patch? > > >> > > > >> > I just moved and have only sporadic internet access and free time > > >> > slots available. Would be nice if you could do it! > > >> > > >> sure, find the merged patch below, against latest -git, boot-tested on > > >> x86. Is this what you had in mind? > > >> > > >> Ingo > > >> > > >> ----------------> > > >> Subject: mm: node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() > > >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> > > >> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:36:31 +0200 > > >> > > >> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address > > >> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node > > >> configurations. > > >> > > >> If the address range exceeds the node range, it well be marked free > > >> across node boundaries, too. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> > > >> CC: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> > > >> CC: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> > > >> CC: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com> > > >> CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > >> CC: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> > > >> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > >> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > >> --- > > >> mm/bootmem.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > >> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> Index: linux-x86.q/mm/bootmem.c > > >> =================================================================== > > >> --- linux-x86.q.orig/mm/bootmem.c > > >> +++ linux-x86.q/mm/bootmem.c > > >> @@ -493,8 +493,31 @@ int __init reserve_bootmem(unsigned long > > >> void __init free_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size) > > >> { > > >> bootmem_data_t *bdata; > > >> - list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) > > >> - free_bootmem_core(bdata, addr, size); > > >> + unsigned long pos = addr; > > >> + unsigned long partsize = size; > > >> + > > >> + list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) { > > >> + unsigned long remainder = 0; > > >> + > > >> + if (pos < bdata->node_boot_start) > > >> + continue; > > >> + > > >> + if (PFN_DOWN(pos + partsize) > bdata->node_low_pfn) { > > >> + remainder = PFN_DOWN(pos + partsize) - bdata->node_low_pfn; > > >> + partsize -= remainder; > > >> + } > > >> + > > >> + free_bootmem_core(bdata, pos, partsize); > > >> + > > >> + if (!remainder) > > >> + return; > > >> + > > >> + pos = PFN_PHYS(bdata->node_low_pfn + 1); > > >> + } > > >> + printk(KERN_ERR "free_bootmem: request: addr=%lx, size=%lx, " > > >> + "state: pos=%lx, partsize=%lx\n", addr, size, > > >> + pos, partsize); > > >> + BUG(); > > >> } > > >> > > >> unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem(void) > > >> > > > > > > it will not work with cross nodes. > > > > > > for example: node 0: 0-2g, 4-6g, node1: 2-4g, 6-8g. > > > and if ramdisk sit cross 2G boundary. you will only free the range > > > before 2g. > > > > Yes, you stated that several times but this is not a technical argument: > > These setups are afaik not yet supported by the kernel at all. And you > > could not explain the node layout with the patch that implements support > > for these configurations. > > I looked at Suresh's patch, and it still only has one bdata for one node.
Suresh's patch already in the Linus tree. commit 6ec6e0d9f2fd7cb6ca6bc3bfab5ae7b5cdd8c36f Author: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Date: Tue Mar 25 10:14:35 2008 -0700
srat, x86: add support for nodes spanning other nodes
For example, If the physical address layout on a two node system with 8 GB memory is something like: node 0: 0-2GB, 4-6GB node 1: 2-4GB, 6-8GB
Current kernels fail to boot/detect this NUMA topology.
ACPI SRAT tables can expose such a topology which needs to be supported.
Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
YH
| |