mm/memblock.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
---
mm/memblock.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index f9e61e565a53..6b5f6c246458 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ bool __init_memblock memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type *type,
* @align: alignment of free area to find
* @nid: nid of the free area to find, %NUMA_NO_NODE for any node
* @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes
+ * @p_nid: ptr to int for nid of the range, can be %NULL
*
* Utility called from memblock_find_in_range_node(), find free area bottom-up.
*
@@ -213,12 +214,12 @@ bool __init_memblock memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type *type,
static phys_addr_t __init_memblock
__memblock_find_range_bottom_up(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid,
- enum memblock_flags flags)
+ enum memblock_flags flags, int *p_nid)
{
phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
u64 i;
- for_each_free_mem_range(i, nid, flags, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
+ for_each_free_mem_range(i, nid, flags, &this_start, &this_end, p_nid) {
this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
@@ -239,6 +240,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
* @align: alignment of free area to find
* @nid: nid of the free area to find, %NUMA_NO_NODE for any node
* @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes
+ * @p_nid: ptr to int for nid of the range, can be %NULL
*
* Utility called from memblock_find_in_range_node(), find free area top-down.
*
@@ -248,13 +250,13 @@ __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
static phys_addr_t __init_memblock
__memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid,
- enum memblock_flags flags)
+ enum memblock_flags flags, int *p_nid)
{
phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
u64 i;
for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, flags, &this_start, &this_end,
- NULL) {
+ p_nid) {
this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
@@ -278,6 +280,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
* %MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
* @nid: nid of the free area to find, %NUMA_NO_NODE for any node
* @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes
+ * @p_nid: ptr to int for nid of the range, can be %NULL
*
* Find @size free area aligned to @align in the specified range and node.
*
@@ -287,7 +290,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
phys_addr_t end, int nid,
- enum memblock_flags flags)
+ enum memblock_flags flags, int *p_nid)
{
/* pump up @end */
if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE ||
@@ -300,10 +303,10 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
if (memblock_bottom_up())
return __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(start, end, size, align,
- nid, flags);
+ nid, flags, p_nid);
else
return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align,
- nid, flags);
+ nid, flags, p_nid);
}
/**
@@ -328,7 +331,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range(phys_addr_t start,
again:
ret = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end,
- NUMA_NO_NODE, flags);
+ NUMA_NO_NODE, flags, NULL);
if (!ret && (flags & MEMBLOCK_MIRROR)) {
pr_warn_ratelimited("Could not allocate %pap bytes of mirrored memory\n",
@@ -863,6 +866,17 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
return memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
}
+static int __init_memblock memblock_reserve_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
+ int nid, enum memblock_flags flags)
+{
+ phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
+
+ memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] nid=%d flags=%x %pS\n", __func__,
+ &base, &end, nid, flags, (void *)_RET_IP_);
+
+ return memblock_add_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size, nid, flags);
+}
+
int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
@@ -1389,6 +1403,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
{
enum memblock_flags flags = choose_memblock_flags();
phys_addr_t found;
+ int p_nid;
if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n"))
nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
@@ -1401,15 +1416,15 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
again:
found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, nid,
- flags);
- if (found && !memblock_reserve(found, size))
+ flags, &p_nid);
+ if (found && !memblock_reserve_node(found, size, p_nid, flags))
goto done;
if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE && !exact_nid) {
found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start,
end, NUMA_NO_NODE,
- flags);
- if (found && !memblock_reserve(found, size))
+ flags, &p_nid);
+ if (found && !memblock_reserve_node(found, size, p_nid, flags))
goto done;
}
--
2.25.1On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: > It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a > parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used > to pass the node id to the new reserve region. > > Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to > the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid(). > > Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev> What problem does this patch solve? -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: > >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region. >> >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev> > > What problem does this patch solve? > If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case. > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: > June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: > > > >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a > >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used > >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region. > >> > >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to > >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid(). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev> > > > > What problem does this patch solve? > > > > If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need > memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later. > I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). > It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
June 26, 2023 2:21 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: > >> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: >> >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region. >> >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev> >> >> What problem does this patch solve? >> >> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need >> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). > > When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still > unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we > still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later. Even so, we still need to pass the 'flags' to the new reserve region. choose_memblock_flags() may return MEMBLOCK_MIRROR in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), memblock_reserve() couldn't pass this flag in this case. >> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). >> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case. > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:13:16AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: > June 26, 2023 2:21 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: > > > >> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: > >> > >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a > >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used > >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region. > >> > >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to > >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid(). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev> > >> > >> What problem does this patch solve? > >> > >> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need > >> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). > > > > When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still > > unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we > > still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later. > > Even so, we still need to pass the 'flags' to the new reserve region. > choose_memblock_flags() may return MEMBLOCK_MIRROR in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), > memblock_reserve() couldn't pass this flag in this case. flags are only relevant to memblock.memory, we don't care about the flags in memblock.reserved. > >> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). > >> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case. > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours, > > Mike. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
June 27, 2023 10:33 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:13:16AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: > >> June 26, 2023 2:21 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote: >> >> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: >> >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region. >> >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev> >> >> What problem does this patch solve? >> >> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need >> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). >> >> When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still >> unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we >> still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later. >> >> Even so, we still need to pass the 'flags' to the new reserve region. >> choose_memblock_flags() may return MEMBLOCK_MIRROR in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), >> memblock_reserve() couldn't pass this flag in this case. > > flags are only relevant to memblock.memory, we don't care about the flags > in memblock.reserved. > get it. >> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages(). >> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case. >> >> -- >> Sincerely yours, >> Mike. > > -- > Sincerely yours, > Mike.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.