On 10/20/2012 01:29 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> I'm travelling at the moment so apologies that I have not followed up on
> this. My problem is still the same with the patch - it changes more
> headers than is necessary and it is sparsemem specific. At minimum, try
> the suggestion of
>
> if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> pfn = ALIGN(pfn + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES, MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES) - 1;
> continue;
> }
Sorry I didn't catch this until v2...
Is that ALIGN() correct? If pfn=3, then it would expand to:
(3+MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES+MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES-1) & ~(MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES-1)
You would end up skipping the current MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES area, and then
one _extra_ because ALIGN() aligns up, and you're adding
MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES too. It doesn't matter unless you run in to a
!early_valid_pfn() in the middle of a MAX_ORDER area, I guess.
I think this would work, plus be a bit smaller:
pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES) - 1;
--
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
