Hi, On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:25:44AM +0000, Wang, Matt wrote: > I believe I explained why we choose it to be a wrapper, > " I noticed that __memblock_free_early and memblock_free has the same > code. At first I think we can delete __memblock_free_early till > __memblock_free_late remind me __memblock_free_early is meaningful. It’s > a note to call this before struct page was initialized." I've been offline when you've sent your patch, otherwise I would have commented then. First of all, thanks for spotting that memblock_free() and __memblock_free_early() are identical :) Regarding the choice which one should be removed, the __memblock_free_early() is never called directly by the memblock users but rather via memblock_free_early() wrapper. I believe it would be cleaner to make that wrapper call memblock_free() directly without the additional nesting. > Andrew may choose plan as he see fit. > > Regards, > Matt -- Sincerely yours, Mike. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Rapoport [mailto:rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 2018年11月25日 18:30 > To: Andrew Morton > Cc: Wang, Matt; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Make __memblock_free_early a wrapper of memblock_free rather dup it > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 09:27:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 04:01:53 +0000 "Wang, Matt" <Matt.Wang@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] Make __memblock_free_early a wrapper of > > > memblock_free rather than dup it > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wentao Wang <witallwang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > mm/memblock.c | 7 +------ > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 9a2d5ae..08bf136 > > > 100644 > > > --- a/mm/memblock.c > > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > > > @@ -1546,12 +1546,7 @@ void * __init memblock_alloc_try_nid( > > > */ > > > void __init __memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t > > > size) { > > > - phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > > > - > > > - memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] %pF\n", > > > - __func__, &base, &end, (void *)_RET_IP_); > > > - kmemleak_free_part_phys(base, size); > > > - memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size); > > > + memblock_free(base, size); > > > } > > > > hm, I suppose so. The debug messaging becomes less informative but > > the duplication is indeed irritating and if we really want to show the > > different caller info in the messages, we could do it in a smarter > > fashion. > > Sorry for jumping late, but I believe the better way would be simply replace the only two calls to __memblock_free_early() with calls to memblock_free(). > > The patch below is based on the current mmots. > > From 4de5a2aabb0b898c6b4add6bf91175fc55725362 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:20:46 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] memblock: replace usage of __memblock_free_early() with > memblock_free() > > The __memblock_free_early() function is only used by the convinince wrappers, so essentially we wrap a call to memblock_free() twice. > Replace calls of __memblock_free_early() with calls to memblock_free() and drop the former. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/memblock.h | 5 ++--- > mm/memblock.c | 22 ++++++++-------------- > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h index 5ba52a7..e9e4017 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > @@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ void __next_mem_range_rev(u64 *idx, int nid, enum memblock_flags flags, void __next_reserved_mem_region(u64 *idx, phys_addr_t *out_start, > phys_addr_t *out_end); > > -void __memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); void __memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > > /** > @@ -452,13 +451,13 @@ static inline void * __init memblock_alloc_node_nopanic(phys_addr_t size, static inline void __init memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, > phys_addr_t size) > { > - __memblock_free_early(base, size); > + memblock_free(base, size); > } > > static inline void __init memblock_free_early_nid(phys_addr_t base, > phys_addr_t size, int nid) > { > - __memblock_free_early(base, size); > + memblock_free(base, size); > } > > static inline void __init memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 0559979..b842ce1 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -800,7 +800,14 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_remove(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) > return memblock_remove_range(&memblock.memory, base, size); } > > - > +/** > + * memblock_free - free boot memory block > + * @base: phys starting address of the boot memory block > + * @size: size of the boot memory block in bytes > + * > + * Free boot memory block previously allocated by memblock_alloc_xx() API. > + * The freeing memory will not be released to the buddy allocator. > + */ > int __init_memblock memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) { > phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1; > @@ -1600,19 +1607,6 @@ void * __init memblock_alloc_try_nid( } > > /** > - * __memblock_free_early - free boot memory block > - * @base: phys starting address of the boot memory block > - * @size: size of the boot memory block in bytes > - * > - * Free boot memory block previously allocated by memblock_alloc_xx() API. > - * The freeing memory will not be released to the buddy allocator. > - */ > -void __init __memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) -{ > - memblock_free(base, size); > -} > - > -/** > * __memblock_free_late - free bootmem block pages directly to buddy allocator > * @base: phys starting address of the boot memory block > * @size: size of the boot memory block in bytes > -- > 2.7.4 > > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike. >
