From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752271AbeDOCTr (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:19:47 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:58478 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751270AbeDOCTq (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:19:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 10:19:40 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Dave Hansen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pagupta@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm/sparse: Optimize memmap allocation during sparse_init() Message-ID: <20180415021940.GA1750@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180228032657.32385-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20180228032657.32385-5-bhe@redhat.com> <5dd3942a-cf66-f749-b1c6-217b0c3c94dc@intel.com> <20180408082038.GB19345@localhost.localdomain> <7cc53287-4570-84d6-502c-c3dfbd279b78@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7cc53287-4570-84d6-502c-c3dfbd279b78@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dave, Sorry for late reply. On 04/11/18 at 08:48am, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 04/08/2018 01:20 AM, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 04/06/18 at 07:50am, Dave Hansen wrote: > >> The code looks fine to me. It's a bit of a shame that there's no > >> verification to ensure that idx_present never goes beyond the shiny new > >> nr_present_sections. > > > > This is a good point. Do you think it's OK to replace (section_nr < > > NR_MEM_SECTIONS) with (section_nr < nr_present_sections) in below > > for_each macro? This for_each_present_section_nr() is only used > > during sparse_init() execution. > > > > #define for_each_present_section_nr(start, section_nr) \ > > for (section_nr = next_present_section_nr(start-1); \ > > ((section_nr >= 0) && \ > > (section_nr < NR_MEM_SECTIONS) && \ > > (section_nr <= __highest_present_section_nr)); \ > > section_nr = next_present_section_nr(section_nr)) > > I was more concerned about the loops that "consume" the section maps. > It seems like they might run over the end of the array. > > >>> @@ -583,6 +592,7 @@ void __init sparse_init(void) > >>> unsigned long *usemap; > >>> unsigned long **usemap_map; > >>> int size; > >>> + int idx_present = 0; > >> > >> I wonder whether idx_present is a good name. Isn't it the number of > >> consumed mem_map[]s or usemaps? > > > > Yeah, in sparse_init(), it's the index of present memory sections, and > > also the number of consumed mem_map[]s or usemaps. And I remember you > > suggested nr_consumed_maps instead. seems nr_consumed_maps is a little > > long to index array to make code line longer than 80 chars. How about > > name it idx_present in sparse_init(), nr_consumed_maps in > > alloc_usemap_and_memmap(), the maps allocation function? I am also fine > > to use nr_consumed_maps for all of them. > > Does the large array index make a bunch of lines wrap or something? If > not, I'd just use the long name. I am fine with the long name, will use 'nr_consumed_maps' you suggested earlier to replace. > > >>> if (!map) { > >>> ms->section_mem_map = 0; > >>> + idx_present++; > >>> continue; > >>> } > >>> > >> > >> > >> This hunk seems logically odd to me. I would expect a non-used section > >> to *not* consume an entry from the temporary array. Why does it? The > >> error and success paths seem to do the same thing. > > > > Yes, this place is the hardest to understand. The temorary arrays are > > allocated beforehand with the size of 'nr_present_sections'. The error > > paths you mentioned is caused by allocation failure of mem_map or > > map_map, but whatever it's error or success paths, the sections must be > > marked as present in memory_present(). Error or success paths happened > > in alloc_usemap_and_memmap(), while checking if it's erorr or success > > paths happened in the last for_each_present_section_nr() of > > sparse_init(), and clear the ms->section_mem_map if it goes along error > > paths. This is the key point of this new allocation way. > > I think you owe some commenting because this is so hard to understand. I can arrange and write a code comment above sparse_init() according to this patch's git log, do you think it's OK? Honestly, it took me several days to write code, while I spent more than one week to write the patch log. Writing patch log is really a headache to me. Thanks Baoquan