From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com (Joonsoo Kim)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:54:26 +0900
Subject: Suspicious error for CMA stress test
In-Reply-To: <56E92AFC.9050208@huawei.com>
References: <56DD38E7.3050107@huawei.com> <56DDCB86.4030709@redhat.com>
 <56DE30CB.7020207@huawei.com> <56DF7B28.9060108@huawei.com>
 <CAAmzW4NDJwgq_P33Ru_X0MKXGQEnY5dr_SY1GFutPAqEUAc_rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <56E2FB5C.1040602@suse.cz>
 <20160314064925.GA27587@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> <56E662E8.700@suse.cz>
 <20160314071803.GA28094@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
 <56E92AFC.9050208@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <20160317065426.GA10315@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 05:44:28PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/3/14 15:18, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 08:06:16AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 03/14/2016 07:49 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:07:40PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>>> On 03/11/2016 04:00 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> How about something like this? Just and idea, probably buggy (off-by-one etc.).
> >>>> Should keep away cost from <pageblock_order iterations@the expense of the
> >>>> relatively fewer >pageblock_order iterations.
> >>> Hmm... I tested this and found that it's code size is a little bit
> >>> larger than mine. I'm not sure why this happens exactly but I guess it would be
> >>> related to compiler optimization. In this case, I'm in favor of my
> >>> implementation because it looks like well abstraction. It adds one
> >>> unlikely branch to the merge loop but compiler would optimize it to
> >>> check it once.
> >> I would be surprised if compiler optimized that to check it once, as
> >> order increases with each loop iteration. But maybe it's smart
> >> enough to do something like I did by hand? Guess I'll check the
> >> disassembly.
> > Okay. I used following slightly optimized version and I need to
> > add 'max_order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER, pageblock_order + 1)'
> > to yours. Please consider it, too.
> 
> Hmm, this one is not work, I still can see the bug is there after applying
> this patch, did I miss something?

I may find that there is a bug which was introduced by me some time
ago. Could you test following change in __free_one_page() on top of
Vlastimil's patch?

-page_idx = pfn & ((1 << max_order) - 1);
+page_idx = pfn & ((1 << MAX_ORDER) - 1);

Thanks.