From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] break out zone free list initialization
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:23:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1091035401.2871.162.camel@nighthawk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1091034585.2871.142.camel@nighthawk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1010 bytes --]
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 10:09, Dave Hansen wrote:
> The following patch removes the individual free area initialization from
> free_area_init_core(), and puts it in a new function
> zone_init_free_lists(). It also creates pages_to_bitmap_size(), which
> is then used in zone_init_free_lists() as well as several times in my
> free area bitmap resizing patch.
>
> First of all, I think it looks nicer this way, but it's also necessary
> to have this if you want to initialize a zone after system boot, like if
> a NUMA node was hot-added. In any case, it should be functionally
> equivalent to the old code.
>
> Compiles and boots on x86. I've been running with this for a few weeks,
> and haven't seen any problems with it yet.
OK, I suck. Here's one that applies with -p1 properly and doesn't add
whitespace on the line above the zone_init_free_lists() call.
page_alloc.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
1 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
-- Dave
[-- Attachment #2: zoneinit_cleanup-2.6.8-rc1-mm1-1.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3088 bytes --]
--- linux-2.6.8-rc1-mm1.work/mm/page_alloc.c.orig 2004-07-28 10:04:56.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.8-rc1-mm1.work/mm/page_alloc.c 2004-07-28 10:09:09.000000000 -0700
@@ -1413,6 +1413,52 @@
}
}
+/*
+ * Page buddy system uses "index >> (i+1)", where "index" is
+ * at most "size-1".
+ *
+ * The extra "+3" is to round down to byte size (8 bits per byte
+ * assumption). Thus we get "(size-1) >> (i+4)" as the last byte
+ * we can access.
+ *
+ * The "+1" is because we want to round the byte allocation up
+ * rather than down. So we should have had a "+7" before we shifted
+ * down by three. Also, we have to add one as we actually _use_ the
+ * last bit (it's [0,n] inclusive, not [0,n[).
+ *
+ * So we actually had +7+1 before we shift down by 3. But
+ * (n+8) >> 3 == (n >> 3) + 1 (modulo overflows, which we do not have).
+ *
+ * Finally, we LONG_ALIGN because all bitmap operations are on longs.
+ */
+unsigned long pages_to_bitmap_size(unsigned long order, unsigned long nr_pages)
+{
+ unsigned long bitmap_size;
+
+ bitmap_size = (nr_pages-1) >> (order+4);
+ bitmap_size = LONG_ALIGN(bitmap_size+1);
+
+ return bitmap_size;
+}
+
+void zone_init_free_lists(struct pglist_data *pgdat, struct zone *zone, unsigned long size)
+{
+ int order;
+ for (order = 0; ; order++) {
+ unsigned long bitmap_size;
+
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&zone->free_area[order].free_list);
+ if (order == MAX_ORDER-1) {
+ zone->free_area[order].map = NULL;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ bitmap_size = pages_to_bitmap_size(order, size);
+ zone->free_area[order].map =
+ (unsigned long *) alloc_bootmem_node(pgdat, bitmap_size);
+ }
+}
+
#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_MEMMAP_INIT
#define memmap_init(start, size, nid, zone, start_pfn) \
memmap_init_zone((start), (size), (nid), (zone), (start_pfn))
@@ -1529,43 +1575,7 @@
zone_start_pfn += size;
lmem_map += size;
- for (i = 0; ; i++) {
- unsigned long bitmap_size;
-
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&zone->free_area[i].free_list);
- if (i == MAX_ORDER-1) {
- zone->free_area[i].map = NULL;
- break;
- }
-
- /*
- * Page buddy system uses "index >> (i+1)",
- * where "index" is at most "size-1".
- *
- * The extra "+3" is to round down to byte
- * size (8 bits per byte assumption). Thus
- * we get "(size-1) >> (i+4)" as the last byte
- * we can access.
- *
- * The "+1" is because we want to round the
- * byte allocation up rather than down. So
- * we should have had a "+7" before we shifted
- * down by three. Also, we have to add one as
- * we actually _use_ the last bit (it's [0,n]
- * inclusive, not [0,n[).
- *
- * So we actually had +7+1 before we shift
- * down by 3. But (n+8) >> 3 == (n >> 3) + 1
- * (modulo overflows, which we do not have).
- *
- * Finally, we LONG_ALIGN because all bitmap
- * operations are on longs.
- */
- bitmap_size = (size-1) >> (i+4);
- bitmap_size = LONG_ALIGN(bitmap_size+1);
- zone->free_area[i].map =
- (unsigned long *) alloc_bootmem_node(pgdat, bitmap_size);
- }
+ zone_init_free_lists(pgdat, zone, zone->spanned_pages);
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-28 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-28 17:09 [PATCH] break out zone free list initialization Dave Hansen
2004-07-28 17:23 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2004-08-05 8:24 ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-05 8:24 ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-05 17:43 ` Dave Hansen
2004-08-05 17:43 ` Dave Hansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1091035401.2871.162.camel@nighthawk \
--to=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.