Grygorii,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:48 PM, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
>
>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>> +#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.
>>
>> Hmm... why wouldn't just interpreting 0 to SMP_CACHE_BYTES in the
>> memblock_virt*() function work?
>>
>
> Problem is not with memblock_virt*(). The issue will happen in case if
> memblock or nobootmem are disabled in below code (memblock_virt*() is disabled).
>
> +/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
> +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x) \
> + __alloc_bootmem(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
>
> which will be transformed to
> +/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
> +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x, align) \
> + __alloc_bootmem(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
>
> and used as
>
> memblock_virt_alloc(size, 0);
>
> so, by default bootmem code will use 0 as default alignment and not SMP_CACHE_BYTES
> and that is wrong.
>
Looks like you didn't understood the suggestion completely.
The fall back inline will look like below .....
static inline memblock_virt_alloc(x, align)
{
if (align == 0)
align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES
__alloc_bootmem(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
}
regards,
Santosh
--
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>