Re: [PATCH 0/7] [RFC] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V2

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Thursday 13 April 2006 02:22, Mel Gorman wrote:

> I experimented with the idea of all architectures sharing the struct 
> node_active_region rather than storing the information twice. It got very 
> messy, particularly for x86 because it needs to store more than nid, 
> start_pfn and end_pfn for a range of page frames (see node_memory_chunk_s 
> in arch/i386/kernel/srat.c). Worse, some architecture-specific code 
> remembers the ranges of active memory as addresses and others as pfn's. In 
> the end, I was not too worried about having the information in two places, 
> because the active ranges are kept in __initdata and gets freed.

The problem is not memory consumption but complexity of code/data structures.
Keeping information in two places is usually a good cue that something 
is wrong. This code is also fragile and hard to test.
 
> I'll admit that for x86_64, the entire code path for initialisation (i.e. 
> architecture specific and architecture independent paths) is now more 
> complex. The architecture independent code needed to be able to handle 
> every variety of node layout which is overkill for x86_64. Nevertheless, 
> without size_zones(), I thought the architecture-specific code for x86_64 
> memory initialisation was a bit easier to read. With 
> architecture-independent zone size and hole calculation, you only have to 
> understand the relevant code once, not once for each architecture.


I think i386 SRAT NUMA should be just removed at some point - it never
worked all that well and is quite complicated. That leaves IA64, x86-64
and ppc64.  I suspect keeping the code there near their low level
data structures is better.

> > I have my doubts that is really a improvement over the old state.
> >
> 
> For x86_64 in isolation or the entire set of patches?

For x86-64/i386. I haven't read the other architectures.

> > I think it would be better if you just defined some simple "library functions"
> > that can be called from the architecture specific code instead of adding
> > all this new high level code.
> >
> 
> What sort of library functions would you recommend? x86_64 uses 
> add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes() from this patchset which 
> seemed fairly straight-forward.

e.g. a generic size_zones(). Possibly some others.

-Andi