From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11354C10F12 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15F52075B for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 02:55:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C15F52075B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 5B26E6B0003; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 563366B0006; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:55:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 478D56B0007; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:55:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-oi1-f199.google.com (mail-oi1-f199.google.com [209.85.167.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF906B0003 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi1-f199.google.com with SMTP id s64so9072676oia.15 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-original-authentication-results:x-gm-message-state:subject:to :references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/GOQGKia2Uxdvs5ilK+dCGiernVe8iIIZr90DUqp+2E=; b=QxFhavBuz75nR1wS1DB8B0LocSnGXDh36yzMsixWyMbn+JVh350OhqED28IrDLL/Kg 9Dw0q1Bjxro+ri3VcyM03AxWn8qa6SQH6Wd6GfEbRqYgsVCdLdqf87K1CMletKjdF2xz r2Meqx+U23GCN3oGV7CgT5tr9981t2gynmuW73hM5iLhnmThZtcUPK0f6HsOOP3linTY pmi63rL6AO9VwzRXgbl+Z/ghn8pIudeslyytGLSDcUk7/Z1idl1sVaWcnn47yc+X6U0v OBKn/izatjZgZ6M0OpFQm8nVwHsAuhxhnUeMn6nwcAfL0/9/Z13uh2Wf2UQrGAPojKdy nnSA== X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of chenzhou10@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.32 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=chenzhou10@huawei.com X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWzrT+Z0y5qm1QUR9tj/cyZ2va3d7d8K0W8QjpqSLx2W2sUnoH DiqIqCbYRRhEhwkI8MEvs05beRVgDLyRoyTXsqTxAJGkJgC+5Ut8SE5ve/kRcfvzxMm4vYwhcoE xw7eQdrmxk40DUo6r9HAPikshGST9e+0aU9+Lj1z4ouWjtodOOldU7uhdCqKWg9N2cw== X-Received: by 2002:aca:abce:: with SMTP id u197mr21544032oie.67.1555383353792; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:55:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxDeh5TXmtuifgBakZMSnoV1lekqfF4Sq1vpXr7MZD6NRres/DALckC08h+vXi1749tAjwn X-Received: by 2002:aca:abce:: with SMTP id u197mr21543992oie.67.1555383352793; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:55:52 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1555383352; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=nv9C9RNWvIaGywBFLt6BH5LVRypL9Vp4re4rwBs5F8jpqmovKy2iCiFsA2p0LyC6kH gDWt7KD4f4LgEDZvHxoIzQFowVGJ1pONudO2urfBMcndhx4e853Aj1yt2o0SrTxD9gGK /7dIguXLJR4XHUgVN3rjnpDZKuw5aeAHyAvaJOxQK1uzuXxfBqvIfNTH/cok3ZhMrhIS eweR/CXDPKMzRp2kduMTincVn1B8mwMCqQkJsP8enEwg9VuSuiLYOU3CEeSPqihnHKzG VfOrSS7xfIXCgkNt7TjAqEsXAvwe7pK547E8dPsYoUal0KwrraasAAUEwN6ZKUC+7Whq OOAw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:cc:references:to:subject; bh=/GOQGKia2Uxdvs5ilK+dCGiernVe8iIIZr90DUqp+2E=; b=hsMiovSrYcvDX8JZ+FRkLTkvJP846A720ns4Oynj7orJJYCrX44AibbnRugxyXKlj2 t8Al9RFNL3qZpBY+gcbqZ/5Yr4B+U91CTcU9Ef9sHC4p+k9jbJ6whekc21ROkCVrtnah TI08L74p1zkMWQ1a4hkogHjFxG9fflPrw/xuvNq0hWFDk3udRuyRkHXT6PbTd1rHuC9z rp2g1Z6IQgs5glgFOirENNhdpI4SKnoOWIQoDkZbuXbTxLS1HJ7jwuhJ3fvF2zCkVPIr h6HMf9/KF+b66F4iX8grg2/cycfwr0x78Cgo/b8B8DLzOXpGxN9YEP6b6Lk6deoEdzBm wcLA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of chenzhou10@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.32 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=chenzhou10@huawei.com Received: from huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com. [45.249.212.32]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w205si23402755oib.102.2019.04.15.19.55.51 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of chenzhou10@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=45.249.212.32; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of chenzhou10@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.32 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=chenzhou10@huawei.com Received: from DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B2E4F7FC284ACB1266F9; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:55:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.131.64) by DGGEMS408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:55:37 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] memblock: add memblock_cap_memory_ranges for multiple ranges To: Mike Rapoport References: <20190415105725.22088-1-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20190415105725.22088-4-chenzhou10@huawei.com> <20190415190940.GA6081@rapoport-lnx> CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , From: Chen Zhou Message-ID: <703cdbf0-b425-880b-b087-aaf3fe84673d@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:55:34 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190415190940.GA6081@rapoport-lnx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.131.64] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Mike, On 2019/4/16 3:09, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 06:57:23PM +0800, Chen Zhou wrote: >> The memblock_cap_memory_range() removes all the memory except the >> range passed to it. Extend this function to receive memblock_type >> with the regions that should be kept. >> >> Enable this function in arm64 for reservation of multiple regions >> for the crash kernel. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhou >> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > > I didn't work on this version, please drop the signed-off. Sorry about this. I should ask you firstly before doing it this way. I will drop it. remove_size); >> + } >> + >> + memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, >> + regs[nr - 1].base + regs[nr - 1].size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX); >> +} >> + > > I've double-checked and I see no problem with using > for_each_mem_range_rev() iterators for removing some ranges. And with them > this functions becomes much clearer and more efficient. > > Can you please check if the below patch works for you? > >>>From e25e6c9cd94a01abac124deacc66e5d258fdbf7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Mike Rapoport > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 16:02:32 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] memblock: extend memblock_cap_memory_range to multiple ranges > > The memblock_cap_memory_range() removes all the memory except the range > passed to it. Extend this function to receive an array of memblock_regions > that should be kept. This allows switching to simple iteration over > memblock arrays with 'for_each_mem_range_rev' to remove the unneeded memory. > > Enable use of this function in arm64 for reservation of multiple regions for > the crash kernel. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > --- > arch/arm64/mm/init.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > include/linux/memblock.h | 2 +- > mm/memblock.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > index 6bc1350..8665d29 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/init.c > @@ -64,6 +64,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(memstart_addr); > phys_addr_t arm64_dma_phys_limit __ro_after_init; > > #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE > + > +/* at most two crash kernel regions, low_region and high_region */ > +#define CRASH_MAX_USABLE_RANGES 2 > + > /* > * reserve_crashkernel() - reserves memory for crash kernel > * > @@ -280,9 +284,9 @@ early_param("mem", early_mem); > static int __init early_init_dt_scan_usablemem(unsigned long node, > const char *uname, int depth, void *data) > { > - struct memblock_region *usablemem = data; > - const __be32 *reg; > - int len; > + struct memblock_type *usablemem = data; > + const __be32 *reg, *endp; > + int len, nr = 0; > > if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0) > return 0; > @@ -291,22 +295,32 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_usablemem(unsigned long node, > if (!reg || (len < (dt_root_addr_cells + dt_root_size_cells))) > return 1; > > - usablemem->base = dt_mem_next_cell(dt_root_addr_cells, ®); > - usablemem->size = dt_mem_next_cell(dt_root_size_cells, ®); > + endp = reg + (len / sizeof(__be32)); > + while ((endp - reg) >= (dt_root_addr_cells + dt_root_size_cells)) { > + unsigned long base = dt_mem_next_cell(dt_root_addr_cells, ®); > + unsigned long size = dt_mem_next_cell(dt_root_size_cells, ®); > > + if (memblock_add_range(usablemem, base, size, NUMA_NO_NODE, > + MEMBLOCK_NONE)) > + return 0; > + if (++nr >= CRASH_MAX_USABLE_RANGES) > + break; > + } > return 1; > } > > static void __init fdt_enforce_memory_region(void) > { > - struct memblock_region reg = { > - .size = 0, > + struct memblock_region usable_regions[CRASH_MAX_USABLE_RANGES]; > + struct memblock_type usablemem = { > + .max = CRASH_MAX_USABLE_RANGES, > + .regions = usable_regions, > }; > > - of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_usablemem, ®); > + of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_usablemem, &usablemem); > > - if (reg.size) > - memblock_cap_memory_range(reg.base, reg.size); > + if (usablemem.cnt) > + memblock_cap_memory_ranges(usablemem.regions, usablemem.cnt); > } > > void __init arm64_memblock_init(void) > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h > index 294d5d8..f5c029b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_mem_size(unsigned long limit_pfn); > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); > -void memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > +void memblock_cap_memory_ranges(struct memblock_region *regions, int count); > void memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit); > bool memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr); > bool memblock_is_map_memory(phys_addr_t addr); > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > index e7665cf..8d4d060 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -1605,36 +1605,31 @@ void __init memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t limit) > PHYS_ADDR_MAX); > } > > -void __init memblock_cap_memory_range(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > -{ > - int start_rgn, end_rgn; > - int i, ret; > - > - if (!size) > - return; > - > - ret = memblock_isolate_range(&memblock.memory, base, size, > - &start_rgn, &end_rgn); > - if (ret) > - return; > - > - /* remove all the MAP regions */ > - for (i = memblock.memory.cnt - 1; i >= end_rgn; i--) > - if (!memblock_is_nomap(&memblock.memory.regions[i])) > - memblock_remove_region(&memblock.memory, i); > +void __init memblock_cap_memory_ranges(struct memblock_region *regions, > + int count) > +{ > + struct memblock_type regions_to_keep = { > + .max = count, > + .cnt = count, > + .regions = regions, > + }; > + phys_addr_t start, end; > + u64 i; > > - for (i = start_rgn - 1; i >= 0; i--) > - if (!memblock_is_nomap(&memblock.memory.regions[i])) > - memblock_remove_region(&memblock.memory, i); > + /* truncate memory while skipping NOMAP regions */ > + for_each_mem_range_rev(i, &memblock.memory, ®ions_to_keep, > + NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, NULL) > + memblock_remove(start, end); Yes, this works well. A minor issue, replace memblock_remove(start, end) with memblock_remove(start, end - start). > > /* truncate the reserved regions */ > - memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, 0, base); > - memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, > - base + size, PHYS_ADDR_MAX); > + for_each_mem_range_rev(i, &memblock.reserved, ®ions_to_keep, > + NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, NULL) > + memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, start, end); The same as above. Replace memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, start, end) with memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, start, end - start). Thanks, Chen Zhou > } > > void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit) > { > + struct memblock_region region = { 0 }; > phys_addr_t max_addr; > > if (!limit) > @@ -1646,7 +1641,8 @@ void __init memblock_mem_limit_remove_map(phys_addr_t limit) > if (max_addr == PHYS_ADDR_MAX) > return; > > - memblock_cap_memory_range(0, max_addr); > + region.size = max_addr; > + memblock_cap_memory_ranges(®ion, 1); > } > > static int __init_memblock memblock_search(struct memblock_type *type, phys_addr_t addr) >