On 05/10/2010 12:10 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 08:17 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> They will check if the region array is big enough. >> >> __check_and_double_region_array will try to double the region array if that >> array spare slots is not big enough. Old array will be copied to new array. >> >> Arch code should set lmb.default_alloc_limit accordingly, so the new array is in >> accessiable address. > > More issues... > >> +static void __init __check_and_double_region_array(struct lmb_region *type, >> + struct lmb_property *static_region) >> +{ >> + u64 size, mem; >> + struct lmb_property *new, *old; >> + unsigned long rgnsz = type->nr_regions; >> + >> + /* Do we have enough slots left ? */ >> + if ((rgnsz - type->cnt) > 2) >> + return; >> + >> + old = type->region; >> + /* Double the array size */ >> + size = sizeof(struct lmb_property) * rgnsz * 2; >> + >> + mem = __lmb_alloc_base(size, sizeof(struct lmb_property), lmb.default_alloc_limit); >> + if (mem == 0) >> + panic("can not find more space for lmb.reserved.region array"); > > Now, that is not right because we do memory hotplug. Thus lmb_add() must > be able to deal with things running past LMB init. > > slab_is_available() will do the job for now, unless somebody has bootmem > and tries to lmb_add() memory while bootmem is active, but screw that > for now. See the code I'll post tonight. > >> + new = __va(mem); >> + /* Copy old to new */ >> + memcpy(&new[0], &old[0], sizeof(struct lmb_property) * rgnsz); >> + memset(&new[rgnsz], 0, sizeof(struct lmb_property) * rgnsz); >> + >> + memset(&old[0], 0, sizeof(struct lmb_property) * rgnsz); >> + type->region = new; >> + type->nr_regions = rgnsz * 2; >> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "lmb.reserved.region array is doubled to %ld at [%llx - %llx]\n", >> + type->nr_regions, mem, mem + size - 1); >> + >> + /* Free old one ?*/ >> + if (old != static_region) >> + lmb_free(__pa(old), sizeof(struct lmb_property) * rgnsz); >> +} > > Similar comment, don't bother if slab is available. > >> +void __init lmb_add_memory(u64 start, u64 end) >> +{ >> + lmb_add_region(&lmb.memory, start, end - start); >> + __check_and_double_region_array(&lmb.memory, &lmb_memory_region[0]); >> +} > > So you duplicate lmb_add() gratuituously ? > >> +void __init lmb_reserve_area(u64 start, u64 end, char *name) >> +{ >> + if (start == end) >> + return; >> + >> + if (WARN_ONCE(start > end, "lmb_reserve_area: wrong range [%#llx, %#llx]\n", start, end)) >> + return; >> + >> + lmb_add_region(&lmb.reserved, start, end - start); >> + __check_and_double_region_array(&lmb.reserved, &lmb_reserved_region[0]); >> +} > > And lmb_reserve() ? > > Do we want to end up with 5 copies of the same API with subtle > differences just for fun ? those functions have __init markers, and only can be used on boot stage. so do need to worry about hotplug mem. what I do is: use current lmb code for x86, and keep the affects to original lmb users to minimum. (should be near 0) YH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html