* 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
[parent not found: <CAATEi5n-W-ZiurGvaF_jNUnxNE1Y_XbdSVy7sN_BH4JPURQL1Q@mail.gmail.com>]
[parent not found: <20200525103458.GA13212@linux.ibm.com>]
[parent not found: <20200525154838.GA14725@roro-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN>]
* 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