-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2024年10月5日 6:56
收件人: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
抄送: 高翔 <gaoxiang17@xxxxxxxxxx>; David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>; Xiang Gao <gxxa03070307@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
主题: Re: 回复: [External Mail]Re: [PATCH v2] mm/cma: print total and used count in cma_alloc()
[外部邮件] 此邮件来源于小米公司外部，请谨慎处理。若对邮件安全性存疑，请将邮件转发给misec@xxxxxxxxxx进行反馈
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 3:39 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 12:23:30 +0000 高翔 <gaoxiang17@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > +static unsigned long cma_get_used_pages(struct cma *cma) {
> > > > + unsigned long used;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irq(&cma->lock);
> > > > + used = bitmap_weight(cma->bitmap, (int)cma_bitmap_maxno(cma));
> > > > + spin_unlock_irq(&cma->lock);
> > >
> > > This adds overhead to each allocation, even if debug outputs are
> > > ignored I assume?
> > >
> > > I wonder if we'd want to print these details only when our
> > > allocation failed?
> > >
> > > Alternatively, we could actually track how many pages are
> > > allocated in the cma, so we don't have to traverse the complete
> > > bitmap on every allocation.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, that's what I did as part of
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240724124845.614c03ad39f8af3729cebee6@
> > linux-foundation.org/T/
> >
> > That patch didn't make it in (yet). I'm happy for it to be combined with this one if that's easier.
>
> That patch has been forgotten about. As I asked in July, "I suggest a
> resend, and add some Cc:s for likely reviewers."
> Indeed - I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone else forgot about it, it's up to me to follow up here, and I haven't yet.
For now, it's better to add members to "struct cma". Do I need to change it again?
