linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* 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