On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:12:48AM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Dean Nelson wrote: > > -unsigned long gen_pool_alloc(struct gen_pool *poolp, int size) > > +int gen_pool_add(struct gen_pool *pool, unsigned long addr, size_t size, > > + int nid) > > { > > - int j, i, s, max_chunk_size; > > - unsigned long a, flags; > > - struct gen_pool_link *h = poolp->h; > > + struct gen_pool_chunk *chunk; > > + int nbits = size >> pool->min_alloc_order; > > + int nbytes = sizeof(struct gen_pool_chunk) + > > + (nbits + BITS_PER_BYTE - 1) / BITS_PER_BYTE; > > + > > + if (nbytes > PAGE_SIZE) { > > + chunk = vmalloc_node(nbytes, nid); > > + } else { > > + chunk = kmalloc_node(nbytes, GFP_KERNEL, nid); > > + } > > Any patch that adds vmalloc() calls to code always makes the little > hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Any chance we could get away with > alloc_pages_node() for this? Is it the mapping of the pages that bothers you? If using alloc_pages_node() is the preferred way, I certainly can make the change. But if I do there is a greater potential that we may have to return failure to the caller of gen_pool_add(), that is if we can't get the necessary number of contiguous pages. Now granted the likelyhood that anyone would require more than a page for a bitmap is very very small. I'd say the vast majority of callers will end up using kmalloc_node(). I can go either way, just let me know whether I should make the change or not. > > ia64_pal_mc_drain(); > > - status = smp_call_function(uncached_ipi_mc_drain, NULL, 0, 1); > > - if (status) > > - printk(KERN_WARNING "smp_call_function failed for " > > - "uncached_ipi_mc_drain! (%i)\n", status); > > + (void) smp_call_function(uncached_ipi_mc_drain, NULL, 0, 1); > > This thing could in theory fail so having the error check there seems > the right thing to me. In either case, please don't (void) the function > return (this is a style issue, I know). The comment block preceding smp_call_function() says that it returns "0 on success, else a negative status code". So regardless of whether the current implementation for a given architecture is always returning 0 is probably irrelevant since that could change tommorrow. So now I'm thinking I should restore the check for an error return, something I will do in the next version of this patch. > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/cache.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/cache.c 2006-04-24 12:25:36.234717101 -0500 > > +++ linux-2.6/arch/ia64/sn/kernel/sn2/cache.c 2006-04-24 12:27:56.012899026 -0500 > > This part we should maybe do in a seperate patch? It seems valid on it's > own? I thought of this, but if this patch were separated out then the remaining patch would be dependent on it since the uncached allocator is being changed to call sn_flush_all_caches() with an uncached address. It certainly could be done, but is it worth the effort? Let me know how I should proceed with this. Thanks, Dean - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |