Re: [RFC PATCH 11/15] mm/page_reporting: report pages at section size instead of MAX_ORDER.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 12:25 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 05.08.21 21:02, Zi Yan wrote:
> > From: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > page_reporting_order was set to MAX_ORDER, which is always smaller than
> > a memory section size. An upcoming change will make MAX_ORDER larger
> > than a memory section size. Set page_reporting_order to
> > PFN_SECTION_SHIFT to match existing size assumption.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> >   mm/page_reporting.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_reporting.c b/mm/page_reporting.c
> > index 382958eef8a9..dc4a2d699862 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_reporting.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_reporting.c
> > @@ -11,7 +11,8 @@
> >   #include "page_reporting.h"
> >   #include "internal.h"
> >
> > -unsigned int page_reporting_order = MAX_ORDER;
> > +/* Set page_reporting_order at section size */
> > +unsigned int page_reporting_order = PFN_SECTION_SHIFT;
> >   module_param(page_reporting_order, uint, 0644);
> >   MODULE_PARM_DESC(page_reporting_order, "Set page reporting order");
> >
> >
>
> If you look closely, this is only a placeholder and will get overwritten
> in page_reporting_register(). I don't recall why we have the module
> parameter at all. Most probably, to adjust the reporting order after we
> already registered a user. Can't we just initialize that to 0 ?

Yeah, it is pretty much there for debugging in the event that we are
on an architecture that is misconfigured.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux