Re: [PATCH v6 10/10] mm/memory_hotplug: Cleanup __remove_pages()

David Hildenbrand
2020-02-05T13:17:47Z

On 05.02.20 13:51, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 02:38:51PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.02.20 14:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 01:41:06PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> It's a pattern commonly used in compilers and emulators to calculate the
>>>> number of bytes to the next block/alignment. (we're missing a macro
>>>> (like we have ALIGN_UP/IS_ALIGNED) for that - but it's hard to come up
>>>> with a good name (e.g., SIZE_TO_NEXT_ALIGN) .
>
>>> You can just write the easy to understand
>>>
>>> ... ALIGN_UP(x) - x ...
>>
>> you mean
>>
>> ALIGN_UP(x, PAGES_PER_SECTION) - x
>>
>> but ...
>>
>>> which is better *without* having a separate name. Does that not
>>> generate good machine code for you?
>>
>> 1. There is no ALIGN_UP. "SECTION_ALIGN_UP(x) - x" would be possible
>
> Erm, you started it ;-)

Yeah, I was thinking in the wrong code base :)

>
>> 2. It would be wrong if x is already aligned.
>>
>> e.g., let's use 4096 for simplicity as we all know that value by heart
>> (for both x and the block size).
>>
>> a) -(4096 | -4096) -> 4096
>>
>> b) #define ALIGN_UP(x, a) ((x + a - 1) & -(a))
>>
>> ALIGN_UP(4096, 4096) - 4096 -> 0
>>
>> Not as easy as it seems ...
>
> If you always want to return a number >= 1, it it simply
> ALIGN_UP(x + 1) - x

I'm sorry to have to correct you again for some corner cases:

ALIGN_UP(1, 4096) - 4096 = 0

Again, not as easy as it seems ...

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb