Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:53:01 +0800 | From | Tang Chen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] page_alloc: Bootmem limit with movablecore_map |
| |
On 11/26/2012 08:22 PM, wujianguo wrote: > On 2012-11-23 18:44, Tang Chen wrote: >> This patch make sure bootmem will not allocate memory from areas that >> may be ZONE_MOVABLE. The map info is from movablecore_map boot option. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tang Chen<tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan<laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Reviewed-by: Wen Congyang<wency@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Tested-by: Lin Feng<linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- >> include/linux/memblock.h | 1 + >> mm/memblock.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- >> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h >> index d452ee1..6e25597 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h >> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h >> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ struct memblock { >> >> extern struct memblock memblock; >> extern int memblock_debug; >> +extern struct movablecore_map movablecore_map; >> >> #define memblock_dbg(fmt, ...) \ >> if (memblock_debug) printk(KERN_INFO pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__) >> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c >> index 6259055..33b3b4d 100644 >> --- a/mm/memblock.c >> +++ b/mm/memblock.c >> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start, >> { >> phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand; >> u64 i; >> + int curr = movablecore_map.nr_map - 1; >> >> /* pump up @end */ >> if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE) >> @@ -114,13 +115,25 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start, >> this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end); >> this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end); >> >> - if (this_end< size) >> +restart: >> + if (this_end<= this_start || this_end< size) >> continue; >> >> + for (; curr>= 0; curr--) { >> + if (movablecore_map.map[curr].start< this_end) > > movablecore_map[curr].start should be movablecore_map[curr].start<< PAGE_SHIFT. > May be you can change movablecore_map[].start/end to movablecore_map[].start_pfn/end_pfn > to avoid confusion.
Hi Wu,
Yes, it was my mistake that I forgot to shift the pfn. And this was tested out by my partner too. And I have fixed it in my v3 patch.
Thanks for the comments. :)
> >> + break; >> + } >> + >> cand = round_down(this_end - size, align); >> + if (curr>= 0&& cand< movablecore_map.map[curr].end) { >> + this_end = movablecore_map.map[curr].start; > > Ditto. > >> + goto restart; >> + } >> + >> if (cand>= this_start) >> return cand; >> } >> + >> return 0; >> } >> >> > >
| |