On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:31:14AM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> For the particular bootmem node, the minimal and maximal PFN (
> Page Frame Number) have been traced in the instance of "struct
> bootmem_data_t". On current implementation, the maximal PFN isn't
> checked while deallocating a bunch (BITS_PER_LONG) of page frames.
> So the current implementation won't work if the maximal PFN isn't
> aligned with BITS_PER_LONG.
That's not true, given how the bitmap works, see my previous mail.
> The patch will check the maximal PFN of the given bootmem node.
> Also, we needn't check all the bits map when the starting PFN isn't
> BITS_PER_LONG aligned.
Actually, it's musn't. I just realized that this code is totally
buggy :(
vec is an aligned chunk of memory that start is pointing into. If
start is not aligned, we check the bitmap at the wrong offset
throughout the loop.
Your skipping the unaligned bits is not an optimization, it's a
bugfix.
> Actually, we should start from the offset
> of the bits map, which indicated by the starting PFN. By the way,
> V2 patch removed the duplicate check according to comments from
> Johannes Weiner.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/bootmem.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/bootmem.c b/mm/bootmem.c
> index 5a04536..b4f3ba5 100644
> --- a/mm/bootmem.c
> +++ b/mm/bootmem.c
> @@ -201,9 +201,11 @@ static unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem_core(bootmem_data_t *bdata)
> count += BITS_PER_LONG;
> start += BITS_PER_LONG;
> } else {
> - unsigned long off = 0;
> + unsigned long cursor = start;
> + unsigned long off = cursor & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1);
>
> - while (vec && off < BITS_PER_LONG) {
> + vec >>= off;
> + while (vec) {
> if (vec & 1) {
> page = pfn_to_page(start + off);
I don't understand this.
start + (start & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1)) ?
> __free_pages_bootmem(page, 0);
> @@ -211,6 +213,7 @@ static unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem_core(bootmem_data_t *bdata)
> }
> vec >>= 1;
> off++;
> + cursor++;
cursor is not really used anywhere.
> start = ALIGN(start + 1, BITS_PER_LONG);
> }
> --
I think all we need to add is
vec >>= start & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1);
before the loop, and call the patch a bugfix rather than an
optimization.
And removing the off < BITS_PER_LONG check should probably be a
separate change with its own explanation then, to not have unrelated
cleanup and error potential in a bugfix patch.
How about this:
---
From: Gavin Shan <shangw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [patch 1/2] mm: bootmem: fix checking the bitmap when finally
freeing bootmem
When bootmem releases an unaligned chunk of memory at the beginning of
a node to the page allocator, it iterates from that unaligned PFN but
checks an aligned word of the page bitmap. The checked bits do not
correspond to the PFNs and, as a result, reserved pages can be freed.
Properly shift the bitmap word so that the lowest bit corresponds to
the starting PFN before entering the freeing loop.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/bootmem.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/mm/bootmem.c b/mm/bootmem.c
index 0131170..67872fc 100644
--- a/mm/bootmem.c
+++ b/mm/bootmem.c
@@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ static unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem_core(bootmem_data_t *bdata)
} else {
unsigned long off = 0;
+ vec >>= start & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1);
while (vec && off < BITS_PER_LONG) {
if (vec & 1) {
page = pfn_to_page(start + off);
--
1.7.10
--
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>