From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD786B0055 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:45:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:43:59 +0200 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH] bootmem.c: Avoid c90 declaration warning Message-ID: <20090619164359.GA2265@cmpxchg.org> References: <1245355633.29927.16.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20090618132410.0b55cd90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090618215744.GA10816@cmpxchg.org> <4A3ADB33.8060102@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A3ADB33.8060102@kernel.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Andrew Morton , Joe Perches , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Tejun Heo List-ID: On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 05:26:27PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 01:24:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> Unrelatedly, I'm struggling a bit with bootmem_arch_preferred_node(). > >> It's only defined if CONFIG_X86_32=y && CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES=y, > >> but it gets called if CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM=y. > >> > >> Is this correct, logical and as simple as we can make it?? > > > > x86_32 numa is the only setter of HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM. I don't know why > > this arch has a strict preference/requirement(?) for bootmem on node > > 0. > > > > I found this mail from Yinghai > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123614990906256&w=2 > > > > where he says that it expects all bootmem on node zero but with the > > current code and alloc_arch_preferred_bootmem() failing, we could fall > > back to another node. Won't this break? Yinghai? > > not sure it is the same problem. the fix was in mainline already. I just wanted to know if the requirement for bootmem on node 0 is strict or just a preference. Do you perhaps happen to know? :) > > Otherwise, could we perhaps use something as simple as this? > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmzone_32.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmzone_32.h > > index ede6998..b68a672 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmzone_32.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmzone_32.h > > @@ -92,8 +92,7 @@ static inline int pfn_valid(int pfn) > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES > > /* always use node 0 for bootmem on this numa platform */ > > -#define bootmem_arch_preferred_node(__bdata, size, align, goal, limit) \ > > - (NODE_DATA(0)->bdata) > > +#define bootmem_arch_preferred_node (NODE(0)->bdata) > > #endif /* CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES */ > > > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_MMZONE_32_H */ > > diff --git a/mm/bootmem.c b/mm/bootmem.c > > index 282df0a..0097fa2 100644 > > --- a/mm/bootmem.c > > +++ b/mm/bootmem.c > > @@ -528,23 +528,6 @@ find_block: > > return NULL; > > } > > > > -static void * __init alloc_arch_preferred_bootmem(bootmem_data_t *bdata, > > - unsigned long size, unsigned long align, > > - unsigned long goal, unsigned long limit) > > -{ > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available())) > > - return kzalloc(size, GFP_NOWAIT); > > - > > -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM > > - bootmem_data_t *p_bdata; > > - > > - p_bdata = bootmem_arch_preferred_node(bdata, size, align, goal, limit); > > - if (p_bdata) > > - return alloc_bootmem_core(p_bdata, size, align, goal, limit); > > -#endif > > - return NULL; > > -} > > - > > static void * __init ___alloc_bootmem_nopanic(unsigned long size, > > unsigned long align, > > unsigned long goal, > > @@ -553,11 +536,15 @@ static void * __init ___alloc_bootmem_nopanic(unsigned long size, > > bootmem_data_t *bdata; > > void *region; > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available())) > > + return kzalloc(size, GFP_NOWAIT); > > restart: > > - region = alloc_arch_preferred_bootmem(NULL, size, align, goal, limit); > > +#ifdef bootmem_arch_preferred_node > > + region = alloc_bootmem_core(bootmem_arch_preferred_node, > > + size, align, goal, limit); > > if (region) > > return region; > > - > > +#endif > > list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) { > > if (goal && bdata->node_low_pfn <= PFN_DOWN(goal)) > > continue; > > @@ -636,13 +623,11 @@ static void * __init ___alloc_bootmem_node(bootmem_data_t *bdata, > > { > > void *ptr; > > > > - ptr = alloc_arch_preferred_bootmem(bdata, size, align, goal, limit); > > - if (ptr) > > - return ptr; > > - > > +#ifndef bootmem_arch_preferred_node > > ptr = alloc_bootmem_core(bdata, size, align, goal, limit); > > if (ptr) > > return ptr; > > +#endif > > > > return ___alloc_bootmem(size, align, goal, limit); > > } > > > any reason to kill alloc_arch_preferred_bootmem? Yeah, I think the diffstat is convincing hehe. And I think it looks more straight forward, but no strong feelings. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org