linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
To: Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: return zero_resv_unavail optimization
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:19:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180928001944.GA9242@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180925153532.6206-4-msys.mizuma@gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:35:32AM -0400, Masayoshi Mizuma wrote:
> From: Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>
> 
> When checking for valid pfns in zero_resv_unavail(), it is not necessary to
> verify that pfns within pageblock_nr_pages ranges are valid, only the first
> one needs to be checked. This is because memory for pages are allocated in
> contiguous chunks that contain pageblock_nr_pages struct pages.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>
> Reviewed-off-by: Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@jp.fujitsu.com>

According to convention, review tag is formatted like "Reviewed-by: ...",
Otherwise, looks good to me.

Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>

> ---
>  mm/page_alloc.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3b9d89e..bd5b7e4 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -6440,6 +6440,29 @@ void __init free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
>  }
>  
>  #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK) && !defined(CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP)
> +
> +/*
> + * Zero all valid struct pages in range [spfn, epfn), return number of struct
> + * pages zeroed
> + */
> +static u64 zero_pfn_range(unsigned long spfn, unsigned long epfn)
> +{
> +	unsigned long pfn;
> +	u64 pgcnt = 0;
> +
> +	for (pfn = spfn; pfn < epfn; pfn++) {
> +		if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))) {
> +			pfn = ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)
> +				+ pageblock_nr_pages - 1;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> +		pgcnt++;
> +	}
> +
> +	return pgcnt;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Only struct pages that are backed by physical memory are zeroed and
>   * initialized by going through __init_single_page(). But, there are some
> @@ -6455,7 +6478,6 @@ void __init free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
>  void __init zero_resv_unavail(void)
>  {
>  	phys_addr_t start, end;
> -	unsigned long pfn;
>  	u64 i, pgcnt;
>  	phys_addr_t next = 0;
>  
> @@ -6465,34 +6487,18 @@ void __init zero_resv_unavail(void)
>  	pgcnt = 0;
>  	for_each_mem_range(i, &memblock.memory, NULL,
>  			NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, NULL) {
> -		if (next < start) {
> -			for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(next); pfn < PFN_UP(start); pfn++) {
> -				if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)))
> -					continue;
> -				mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> -				pgcnt++;
> -			}
> -		}
> +		if (next < start)
> +			pgcnt += zero_pfn_range(PFN_DOWN(next), PFN_UP(start));
>  		next = end;
>  	}
> -	for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(next); pfn < max_pfn; pfn++) {
> -		if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)))
> -			continue;
> -		mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
> -		pgcnt++;
> -	}
> -
> +	pgcnt += zero_pfn_range(PFN_DOWN(next), max_pfn);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Struct pages that do not have backing memory. This could be because
>  	 * firmware is using some of this memory, or for some other reasons.
> -	 * Once memblock is changed so such behaviour is not allowed: i.e.
> -	 * list of "reserved" memory must be a subset of list of "memory", then
> -	 * this code can be removed.
>  	 */
>  	if (pgcnt)
>  		pr_info("Zeroed struct page in unavailable ranges: %lld pages", pgcnt);
> -
>  }
>  #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK && !CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP */
>  
> -- 
> 2.18.0
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-28  0:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-25 15:35 [PATCH v2 0/3] mm: Fix for movable_node boot option Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-09-25 15:35 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] Revert "x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved" Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-10-02  9:39   ` Ingo Molnar
2018-10-02 13:51     ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-09-25 15:35 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-09-25 15:35 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: return zero_resv_unavail optimization Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-09-28  0:19   ` Naoya Horiguchi [this message]
2018-09-28 15:36     ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-09-27 20:41 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] mm: Fix for movable_node boot option Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-02 14:01   ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-05 18:57     ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-10-05 19:02     ` Pavel Tatashin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180928001944.GA9242@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp \
    --to=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=msys.mizuma@gmail.com \
    --cc=pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox