* Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock:Do not retry a range that has already been checked
[not found] <20200524141640.GA10017@roro-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN>
@ 2020-05-24 17:49 ` Mike Rapoport
[not found] ` <CAATEi5n-W-ZiurGvaF_jNUnxNE1Y_XbdSVy7sN_BH4JPURQL1Q@mail.gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Mike Rapoport @ 2020-05-24 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: daeroro; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:16:40PM +0900, daeroro wrote:
> The range that has already been checked
> don't have to be checked in a second attempt.
The first attempts tries to find free memory in the interval [min_addr,
max_addr) and the second attempt does not care about min_addr and looks
for free memory in the interval [0, max_addr).
Is there a problem you see with this algorthim?
> Signed-off-by: daeroro <skseofh@naver.com>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 39aceafc57f6..6f72fae415ee 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ static void * __init memblock_alloc_internal(
>
> /* retry allocation without lower limit */
> if (!alloc && min_addr)
> - alloc = memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0, max_addr, nid,
> + alloc = memblock_alloc_range_nid(size, align, 0, min_addr, nid,
> exact_nid);
>
> if (!alloc)
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/memblock:Do not retry a range that has already been checked
[not found] ` <20200525154838.GA14725@roro-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN>
@ 2020-05-25 16:05 ` Mike Rapoport
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Mike Rapoport @ 2020-05-25 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DaeRoLee; +Cc: skseofh, linux-mm
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:48:38AM +0900, DaeRoLee wrote:
> Sorry for the invalid mail format..
>
> Actually, I didn't experience a real issue.
>
> On second thought, I totally agree with you.
>
> Could you explain "size" in "min_addr + size -1"?
> Does this mean memblock size?
"size" is the allocation size. It could be that there is no free slot
above min_addr, but there is free memory slightly below it. If you ceil
the second search by min_addr, the allocation must start below min_addr
- size, rather than below min_addr.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-25 16:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20200524141640.GA10017@roro-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN>
2020-05-24 17:49 ` [PATCH] mm/memblock:Do not retry a range that has already been checked Mike Rapoport
[not found] ` <CAATEi5n-W-ZiurGvaF_jNUnxNE1Y_XbdSVy7sN_BH4JPURQL1Q@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20200525103458.GA13212@linux.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20200525154838.GA14725@roro-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN>
2020-05-25 16:05 ` Mike Rapoport
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox