Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:53:33 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] mm: percpu: Cleanup percpu first chunk funciton | From | Kefeng Wang <> |
| |
On 2021/11/30 6:55, Dennis Zhou wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 05:35:53PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> When support page mapping percpu first chunk allocator on arm64, we >> found there are lots of duplicated codes in percpu embed/page first >> chunk allocator. This patchset is aimed to cleanup them and should >> no funciton change, only test on arm64. >> >> Kefeng Wang (4): >> mm: percpu: Generalize percpu related config >> mm: percpu: Add pcpu_fc_cpu_to_node_fn_t typedef >> mm: percpu: Add generic pcpu_fc_alloc/free funciton >> mm: percpu: Add generic pcpu_populate_pte() function >> >> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 20 +---- >> arch/ia64/Kconfig | 9 +-- >> arch/mips/Kconfig | 10 +-- >> arch/mips/mm/init.c | 14 +--- >> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 17 +--- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c | 92 +-------------------- >> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 10 +-- >> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 12 +-- >> arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c | 105 +----------------------- >> arch/x86/Kconfig | 17 +--- >> arch/x86/kernel/setup_percpu.c | 66 ++------------- >> drivers/base/arch_numa.c | 68 +--------------- >> include/linux/percpu.h | 13 +-- >> mm/Kconfig | 12 +++ >> mm/percpu.c | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> 15 files changed, 165 insertions(+), 443 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> 2.26.2 >> > I've made a few comments. I think this will be a little bit of a > challenge to get through due to it touching so many architectures. For > ease, it probably makes sense to run it through mny tree, but we'll need > explicit acks as I mentioned. > > I like getting rid of the pcpu_alloc_bootmem()/pcpu_free_bootmem() > functions. However, let's keep the implementation identical to x86. ok , will change patch3 in v2 > > > I don't think we should get rid of the populate_pte_fn(). I'm not > comfortable changing x86's implementation. Simply offer a NULL, and if > NULL use the default.
As replied in patch4, we use __weak method, and x86's implementation is
not changed in patch4, is this ok?
> > Do you have a tree that intel pulls? I suggest cleaning up the patches > and pushing to a remote branch that they pick up. That would have caught > the mips typo. Send a PR creating a file in [1] for your branch, github > is fine. Basic validation needs to be done before I can pick this up > too on more than arm64.
Ok, x86/arm64/riscv are tested, but I don't has ppc/mips/sparc compliler.
I will try to push new version into github and test by lkp.
Thanks.
> > [1] https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/tree/master/repo/linux > > Thanks, > Dennis > .
| |