On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:54:42 +0200
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
The "freed" seems redundant to me. Wouldn't "alloc_contig_pages" be a
better name?
> which allocates (ie. removes from buddy system) free pages
> in range. Caller has to guarantee that all pages in range
> are in buddy system.
>
> Along with this function, a free_contig_pages() function is
> provided which frees all (or a subset of) pages allocated
> with alloc_contig_free_pages().
>
> Michal Nazarewicz has modified the function to make it easier
> to allocate not MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES aligned pages by making it
> return pfn of one-past-the-last allocated page.
>
>
> ...
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM) && !defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP)
> +/*
> + * Both PFNs must be from the same zone! If this function returns
> + * true, pfn_to_page(pfn1) + (pfn2 - pfn1) == pfn_to_page(pfn2).
> + */
> +static inline bool zone_pfn_same_memmap(unsigned long pfn1, unsigned long pfn2)
> +{
> + return pfn_to_section_nr(pfn1) == pfn_to_section_nr(pfn2);
> +}
> +
> +#else
> +
> +#define zone_pfn_same_memmap(pfn1, pfn2) (true)
Do this in C, please. It's nicer and can prevent unused-var warnings.
> +#endif
> +
>
> ...
>
> +unsigned long alloc_contig_freed_pages(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> + gfp_t flag)
> +{
> + unsigned long pfn = start, count;
> + struct page *page;
> + struct zone *zone;
> + int order;
> +
> + VM_BUG_ON(!pfn_valid(start));
> + page = pfn_to_page(start);
> + zone = page_zone(page);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lock);
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + VM_BUG_ON(page_count(page) || !PageBuddy(page) ||
> + page_zone(page) != zone);
> +
> + list_del(&page->lru);
> + order = page_order(page);
> + count = 1UL << order;
> + zone->free_area[order].nr_free--;
> + rmv_page_order(page);
> + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -(long)count);
__mod_zone_page_state() generally shouldn't be used - it bypasses the
per-cpu magazines and can introduce high lock contentions.
That's hopefully not an issue on this callpath but it is still a red
flag. I'd suggest at least the addition of a suitably apologetic code
comment here - we don't want people to naively copy this code.
Plus such a comment would let me know why this was done ;)
> + pfn += count;
> + if (pfn >= end)
> + break;
> + VM_BUG_ON(!pfn_valid(pfn));
> +
> + if (zone_pfn_same_memmap(pfn - count, pfn))
> + page += count;
> + else
> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lock);
> +
> + /* After this, pages in the range can be freed one be one */
> + count = pfn - start;
> + pfn = start;
> + for (page = pfn_to_page(pfn); count; --count) {
> + prep_new_page(page, 0, flag);
> + ++pfn;
> + if (likely(zone_pfn_same_memmap(pfn - 1, pfn)))
> + ++page;
> + else
> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> + }
> +
> + return pfn;
> +}
> +
> +void free_contig_pages(unsigned long pfn, unsigned nr_pages)
> +{
> + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> +
> + while (nr_pages--) {
> + __free_page(page);
> + ++pfn;
> + if (likely(zone_pfn_same_memmap(pfn - 1, pfn)))
> + ++page;
> + else
> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> + }
> +}
You're sure these functions don't need EXPORT_SYMBOL()? Maybe the
design is that only DMA core calls into here (if so, that's good).
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
> /*
> * All pages in the range must be isolated before calling this.
> --
> 1.7.1.569.g6f426
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>