From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PoD: shorten certain operations on
 higher order ranges
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:03:18 +0100
Message-ID: <560A8C16.8050803@citrix.com>
References: <56096B3902000078000A63BE@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<560A8218.90405@citrix.com>
	<560AA6E802000078000A6A64@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=707a9d356=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZguZ3-0005vr-P3
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:03:25 +0000
In-Reply-To: <560AA6E802000078000A6A64@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 29/09/15 13:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.09.15 at 14:20, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 28/09/15 15:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c
>>> @@ -119,20 +119,23 @@ p2m_pod_cache_add(struct p2m_domain *p2m
>>>  
>>>      unlock_page_alloc(p2m);
>>>  
>>> -    /* Then add the first one to the appropriate populate-on-demand list */
>>> -    switch(order)
>>> +    /* Then add to the appropriate populate-on-demand list. */
>>> +    switch ( order )
>>>      {
>>> +    case PAGE_ORDER_1G:
>>> +        for ( i = 0; i < (1UL << PAGE_ORDER_1G); i += 1UL << PAGE_ORDER_2M )
>>> +            page_list_add_tail(page + i, &p2m->pod.super);
>>> +        break;
>>>      case PAGE_ORDER_2M:
>>> -        page_list_add_tail(page, &p2m->pod.super); /* lock: page_alloc */
>>> -        p2m->pod.count += 1 << order;
>>> +        page_list_add_tail(page, &p2m->pod.super);
>>>          break;
>>>      case PAGE_ORDER_4K:
>>> -        page_list_add_tail(page, &p2m->pod.single); /* lock: page_alloc */
>>> -        p2m->pod.count += 1;
>>> +        page_list_add_tail(page, &p2m->pod.single);
>>>          break;
>>>      default:
>>>          BUG();
>>>      }
>>> +    p2m->pod.count += 1 << order;
>> 1UL
> Not really - the field is a "long" one, so at best 1L or 1U. And then
> all the valid order values are visible right above, for none of them
> it makes a difference, and there are ample similar uses scattered
> around the file (yes, bad examples are no excuse, but in cases
> where the suffix doesn't really matter I think it is better to omit it).
>
>> Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> Let me know regrading this one,

For sanity sake, I would suggest going with 1L as one less place to go
wrong when we gain 512GB superpages.

~Andrew