> On 11/30/2016 12:43 AM, Liang Li wrote:
> > +static void send_unused_pages_info(struct virtio_balloon *vb,
> > + unsigned long req_id)
> > +{
> > + struct scatterlist sg_in;
> > + unsigned long pos = 0;
> > + struct virtqueue *vq = vb->req_vq;
> > + struct virtio_balloon_resp_hdr *hdr = vb->resp_hdr;
> > + int ret, order;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&vb->balloon_lock);
> > +
> > + for (order = MAX_ORDER - 1; order >= 0; order--) {
>
> I scratched my head for a bit on this one. Why are you walking over orders,
> *then* zones. I *think* you're doing it because you can efficiently fill the
> bitmaps at a given order for all zones, then move to a new bitmap. But, it
> would be interesting to document this.
>
Yes, use the order is somewhat strange, but it's helpful to keep the API simple.
Do you think it's acceptable?
> > + pos = 0;
> > + ret = get_unused_pages(vb->resp_data,
> > + vb->resp_buf_size / sizeof(unsigned long),
> > + order, &pos);
>
> FWIW, get_unsued_pages() is a pretty bad name. "get" usually implies
> bumping reference counts or consuming something. You're just "recording"
> or "marking" them.
>
Will change to mark_unused_pages().
> > + if (ret == -ENOSPC) {
> > + void *new_resp_data;
> > +
> > + new_resp_data = kmalloc(2 * vb->resp_buf_size,
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (new_resp_data) {
> > + kfree(vb->resp_data);
> > + vb->resp_data = new_resp_data;
> > + vb->resp_buf_size *= 2;
>
> What happens to the data in ->resp_data at this point? Doesn't this just
> throw it away?
>
Yes, so we should make sure the data in resp_data is not inuse.
> ...
> > +struct page_info_item {
> > + __le64 start_pfn : 52; /* start pfn for the bitmap */
> > + __le64 page_shift : 6; /* page shift width, in bytes */
> > + __le64 bmap_len : 6; /* bitmap length, in bytes */ };
>
> Is 'bmap_len' too short? a 64-byte buffer is a bit tiny. Right?
>
Currently, we just use the 8 bytes and 0 bytes bitmap, should we support more than 64 bytes?
> > +static int mark_unused_pages(struct zone *zone,
> > + unsigned long *unused_pages, unsigned long size,
> > + int order, unsigned long *pos)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long pfn, flags;
> > + unsigned int t;
> > + struct list_head *curr;
> > + struct page_info_item *info;
> > +
> > + if (zone_is_empty(zone))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> > +
> > + if (*pos + zone->free_area[order].nr_free > size)
> > + return -ENOSPC;
>
> Urg, so this won't partially fill? So, what the nr_free pages limit where we no
> longer fit in the kmalloc()'d buffer where this simply won't work?
>
Yes. My initial implementation is partially fill, it's better for the worst case.
I thought the above code is more efficient for most case ...
Do you think partially fill the bitmap is better?
> > + for (t = 0; t < MIGRATE_TYPES; t++) {
> > + list_for_each(curr, &zone->free_area[order].free_list[t]) {
> > + pfn = page_to_pfn(list_entry(curr, struct page, lru));
> > + info = (struct page_info_item *)(unused_pages +
> *pos);
> > + info->start_pfn = pfn;
> > + info->page_shift = order + PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + *pos += 1;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Do we need to fill in ->bmap_len here?
For integrity, the bmap_len should be filled, will add.
Omit this step just because QEMU assume the ->bmp_len is 0 and ignore this field.
Thanks for your comment!
Liang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href