Hi Tejun, On 12/04/2013 01:24 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:27:23PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> So we add equivalent APIs so that we can replace usage of bootmem >> with memblock interfaces. Architectures already converted to NO_BOOTMEM >> use these new interfaces and other which still uses bootmem, these new >> APIs just fallback to exiting bootmem APIs. So no functional change as >> such. > > The last part of the second last sentence doesn't parse too well. I > think it'd be worthwhile to improve and preferably expand on it as > this is a bit tricky to understand given the twisted state of early > memory allocation. > >> In long run, once all the achitectures moves to NO_BOOTMEM, we can get rid of >> bootmem layer completely. This is one step to remove the core code dependency >> with bootmem and also gives path for architectures to move away from bootmem. > > Lines too long? > [...] > >> +/* FIXME: Move to memblock.h at a point where we remove nobootmem.c */ >> +void *memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic(phys_addr_t size, >> + phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t from, >> + phys_addr_t max_addr, int nid); > > Wouldn't @min_addr instead of @from make more sense? Ditto for other > occurrences. > >> +void *memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, >> + phys_addr_t from, phys_addr_t max_addr, int nid); >> +void __memblock_free_early(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); >> +void __memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); >> + >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x) \ >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \ >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES) > > The underlying function interprets 0 as the default align, so it > probably is a better idea to just use 0 here. > >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \ >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \ >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES) > > Also, do we really need this align variant separate when the caller > can simply specify 0 for the default? Unfortunately Yes. We need it to keep compatibility with bootmem/nobootmem which don't handle 0 as default align value. > >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_nopanic(x) \ >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, \ >> + BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \ >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, \ >> + MAX_NUMNODES) >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_align_nopanic(x, align) \ >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic(x, align, \ >> + BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \ >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, \ >> + MAX_NUMNODES) >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_node(x, nid) \ >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \ >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, nid) >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_node_nopanic(x, nid) \ Regards, - grygorii -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>