|
发件人: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
发送时间: 2024年10月11日 5:17 收件人: 高翔 抄送: Frank van der Linden; David Hildenbrand; Xiang Gao; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 主题: Re: 答复: 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 Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:48:55 +0000 高翔 <gaoxiang17@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ________________________________ > 发件人: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx> > 发送时间: 2024年10月5日 6:55 > 收件人: Andrew Morton > 抄送: 高翔; David Hildenbrand; Xiang Gao; 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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. > > > Do I need to resend it after adding "used_count" member to the "struct cma" as V3? > I don't know what is being asked here. What is this used_count? Some > other patch, presumably? Which? > The preferable thing to do is to send a patch against latest > mm-unstable or linux-next. OK.
|
