linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (akpm tree related)

linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (akpm tree related)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 812 bytes --]

Hi all,

After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
failed like this:

mm/memblock.c: In function 'memblock_find_in_range_node':
mm/memblock.c:104:2: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'
mm/memblock.c:123:4: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'
mm/memblock.c:130:7: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'
mm/memblock.c:131:4: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'

Caused by commit "page_alloc: bootmem limit with movablecore_map" from
the akpm tree.  The definition of struct movablecore_map is protected by
CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP but its use is not.

I have reverted that commit for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (akpm tree related)

[Tang Chen]

Hi Stephen,

On 01/21/2013 02:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the final tree, today's linux-next build (arm defconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> mm/memblock.c: In function 'memblock_find_in_range_node':
> mm/memblock.c:104:2: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'
> mm/memblock.c:123:4: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'
> mm/memblock.c:130:7: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'
> mm/memblock.c:131:4: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct movablecore_map'
>
> Caused by commit "page_alloc: bootmem limit with movablecore_map" from
> the akpm tree.  The definition of struct movablecore_map is protected by
> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP but its use is not.
>
> I have reverted that commit for today.

Thank you very much for reporting this. It was my mistake to miss this 
definition.

I will post a new version of "page_alloc: bootmem limit with 
movablecore_map" since
you have reverted it.


CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP is selected by x86=y, but I don't have any 
non-x86 box.
So I didn't test it. Please tell me if you have any problem with it on 
other platforms.

Thanks. :)

[PATCH v2 1/1] page_alloc: Bootmem limit with movablecore_map

[Tang Chen]

This patch make sure bootmem will not allocate memory from areas that
may be ZONE_MOVABLE. The map info is from movablecore_map boot option.

Signed-off-by: Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Tested-by: Lin Feng <linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 include/linux/memblock.h |    2 +
 mm/memblock.c            |   50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
index d452ee1..ac52bbc 100644
--- a/include/linux/memblock.h
+++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
@@ -60,6 +60,8 @@ int memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
 void memblock_trim_memory(phys_addr_t align);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
+extern struct movablecore_map movablecore_map;
+
 void __next_mem_pfn_range(int *idx, int nid, unsigned long *out_start_pfn,
 			  unsigned long *out_end_pfn, int *out_nid);
 
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 88adc8a..0218231 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -92,9 +92,58 @@ static long __init_memblock memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type *type,
  *
  * Find @size free area aligned to @align in the specified range and node.
  *
+ * If we have CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP defined, we need to check if the
+ * memory we found if not in hotpluggable ranges.
+ *
  * RETURNS:
  * Found address on success, %0 on failure.
  */
+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
+phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
+					phys_addr_t end, phys_addr_t size,
+					phys_addr_t align, int nid)
+{
+	phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
+	u64 i;
+	int curr = movablecore_map.nr_map - 1;
+
+	/* pump up @end */
+	if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE)
+		end = memblock.current_limit;
+
+	/* avoid allocating the first page */
+	start = max_t(phys_addr_t, start, PAGE_SIZE);
+	end = max(start, end);
+
+	for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
+		this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
+		this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
+
+restart:
+		if (this_end <= this_start || this_end < size)
+			continue;
+
+		for (; curr >= 0; curr--) {
+			if ((movablecore_map.map[curr].start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT)
+			    < this_end)
+				break;
+		}
+
+		cand = round_down(this_end - size, align);
+		if (curr >= 0 &&
+		    cand < movablecore_map.map[curr].end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) {
+			this_end = movablecore_map.map[curr].start_pfn
+				   << PAGE_SHIFT;
+			goto restart;
+		}
+
+		if (cand >= this_start)
+			return cand;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+#else /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */
 phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
 					phys_addr_t end, phys_addr_t size,
 					phys_addr_t align, int nid)
@@ -123,6 +172,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
 	}
 	return 0;
 }
+#endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP */
 
 /**
  * memblock_find_in_range - find free area in given range
-- 
1.7.1