On 2013/11/28 16:50:21, kexec <kexec-bounces at lists.infradead.org> wrote:
> >> ping, in case you overlooked this...
> >
> > Sorry for the delayed response, I prioritize the release of v1.5.5 now.
> >
> > Thanks for your advice, check_cyclic_buffer_overrun() should be fixed
> > as you said. In addition, I'm considering other way to address such case,
> > that is to bring the number of "overflowed pages" to the next cycle and
> > exclude them at the top of __exclude_unnecessary_pages() like below:
> >
> > /*
> > * The pages which should be excluded still remain.
> > */
> > if (remainder >= 1) {
> > int i;
> > unsigned long tmp;
> > for (i = 0; i < remainder; ++i) {
> > if (clear_bit_on_2nd_bitmap_for_kernel(pfn + i)) {
> > pfn_user++;
> > tmp++;
> > }
> > }
> > pfn += tmp;
> > remainder -= tmp;
> > mem_map += (tmp - 1) * SIZE(page);
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > If this way works well, then aligning info->buf_size_cyclic will be
> > unnecessary.
> >
>
> I selected the current implementation of changing cyclic buffer size becuase
> I thought it was simpler than carrying over remaining filtered pages to next cycle
> in that there was no need to add extra code in filtering processing.
>
> I guess the reason why you think this is better now is how to detect maximum order of
> huge page is hard in some way, right?
The maximum order will be gotten from HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER or HPAGE_PMD_ORDER,
so I don't say it's hard. However, the carrying over method doesn't depend on
such kernel symbols, so I think it's robuster.
Thanks
Atsushi Kumagai
> --
> Thanks.
> HATAYAMA, Daisuke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
>
