From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, yinghai@kernel.org,
davem@davemloft.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 10/13] memblock, x86: Reimplement memblock_find_dma_reserve() using iterators
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:16:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1310462166-31469-11-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310462166-31469-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
memblock_find_dma_reserve() wants to find out how much memory is
reserved under MAX_DMA_PFN. memblock_x86_memory_[free_]in_range() are
used to find out the amounts of all available and free memory in the
area, which are then subtracted to find out the amount of reservation.
memblock_x86_memblock_[free_]in_range() are implemented using
__memblock_x86_memory_in_range() which builds ranges from memblock and
then count them, which is rather unnecessarily complex.
This patch open codes the counting logic directly in
memblock_find_dma_reserve() using memblock iterators and removes now
unused __memblock_x86_memory_in_range() and find_range_array().
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/memblock.h | 2 -
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 25 +++++++++--
arch/x86/mm/memblock.c | 87 ---------------------------------------
3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/memblock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/memblock.h
index bc9e44b..a0cc7d6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/memblock.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/memblock.h
@@ -7,7 +7,5 @@ void memblock_x86_reserve_range(u64 start, u64 end, char *name);
void memblock_x86_free_range(u64 start, u64 end);
u64 memblock_x86_hole_size(u64 start, u64 end);
-u64 memblock_x86_free_memory_in_range(u64 addr, u64 limit);
-u64 memblock_x86_memory_in_range(u64 addr, u64 limit);
#endif
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
index b99d940..84475f1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
@@ -1093,15 +1093,30 @@ void __init memblock_x86_fill(void)
void __init memblock_find_dma_reserve(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
- u64 free_size_pfn;
- u64 mem_size_pfn;
+ u64 nr_pages = 0, nr_free_pages = 0;
+ unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
+ phys_addr_t start, end;
+ int i;
+ u64 u;
+
/*
* need to find out used area below MAX_DMA_PFN
* need to use memblock to get free size in [0, MAX_DMA_PFN]
* at first, and assume boot_mem will not take below MAX_DMA_PFN
*/
- mem_size_pfn = memblock_x86_memory_in_range(0, MAX_DMA_PFN << PAGE_SHIFT) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
- free_size_pfn = memblock_x86_free_memory_in_range(0, MAX_DMA_PFN << PAGE_SHIFT) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
- set_dma_reserve(mem_size_pfn - free_size_pfn);
+ for_each_mem_pfn_range(i, MAX_NUMNODES, &start_pfn, &end_pfn, NULL) {
+ start_pfn = min_t(unsigned long, start_pfn, MAX_DMA_PFN);
+ end_pfn = min_t(unsigned long, end_pfn, MAX_DMA_PFN);
+ nr_pages += end_pfn - start_pfn;
+ }
+
+ for_each_free_mem_range(u, MAX_NUMNODES, &start, &end, NULL) {
+ start_pfn = min_t(unsigned long, PFN_UP(start), MAX_DMA_PFN);
+ end_pfn = min_t(unsigned long, PFN_DOWN(end), MAX_DMA_PFN);
+ if (start_pfn < end_pfn)
+ nr_free_pages += end_pfn - start_pfn;
+ }
+
+ set_dma_reserve(nr_pages - nr_free_pages);
#endif
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/memblock.c b/arch/x86/mm/memblock.c
index 4107c1a..a9d0972 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/memblock.c
@@ -7,93 +7,6 @@
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/range.h>
-static __init struct range *find_range_array(int count)
-{
- u64 end, size, mem;
- struct range *range;
-
- size = sizeof(struct range) * count;
- end = memblock.current_limit;
-
- mem = memblock_find_in_range(0, end, size, sizeof(struct range));
- if (!mem)
- panic("can not find more space for range array");
-
- /*
- * This range is tempoaray, so don't reserve it, it will not be
- * overlapped because We will not alloccate new buffer before
- * We discard this one
- */
- range = __va(mem);
- memset(range, 0, size);
-
- return range;
-}
-
-static u64 __init __memblock_x86_memory_in_range(u64 addr, u64 limit, bool get_free)
-{
- int i, count;
- struct range *range;
- int nr_range;
- u64 final_start, final_end;
- u64 free_size;
- struct memblock_region *r;
-
- count = (memblock.reserved.cnt + memblock.memory.cnt) * 2;
-
- range = find_range_array(count);
- nr_range = 0;
-
- addr = PFN_UP(addr);
- limit = PFN_DOWN(limit);
-
- for_each_memblock(memory, r) {
- final_start = PFN_UP(r->base);
- final_end = PFN_DOWN(r->base + r->size);
- if (final_start >= final_end)
- continue;
- if (final_start >= limit || final_end <= addr)
- continue;
-
- nr_range = add_range(range, count, nr_range, final_start, final_end);
- }
- subtract_range(range, count, 0, addr);
- subtract_range(range, count, limit, -1ULL);
-
- /* Subtract memblock.reserved.region in range ? */
- if (!get_free)
- goto sort_and_count_them;
- for_each_memblock(reserved, r) {
- final_start = PFN_DOWN(r->base);
- final_end = PFN_UP(r->base + r->size);
- if (final_start >= final_end)
- continue;
- if (final_start >= limit || final_end <= addr)
- continue;
-
- subtract_range(range, count, final_start, final_end);
- }
-
-sort_and_count_them:
- nr_range = clean_sort_range(range, count);
-
- free_size = 0;
- for (i = 0; i < nr_range; i++)
- free_size += range[i].end - range[i].start;
-
- return free_size << PAGE_SHIFT;
-}
-
-u64 __init memblock_x86_free_memory_in_range(u64 addr, u64 limit)
-{
- return __memblock_x86_memory_in_range(addr, limit, true);
-}
-
-u64 __init memblock_x86_memory_in_range(u64 addr, u64 limit)
-{
- return __memblock_x86_memory_in_range(addr, limit, false);
-}
-
void __init memblock_x86_reserve_range(u64 start, u64 end, char *name)
{
if (start == end)
--
1.7.6
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-12 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-12 9:15 [PATCHSET x86/mm] memblock, x86: Allow node info in memblock and remove x86 specific memblock code Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` [PATCH 01/13] memblock: Remove memblock_memory_can_coalesce() Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` [PATCH 02/13] memblock: Reimplement memblock_add_region() Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` [PATCH 03/13] memblock: Add optional region->nid Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 9:43 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` [PATCH 04/13] x86: Use HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 1:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-14 9:44 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` [PATCH 05/13] x86: Use __memblock_alloc_base() in early_reserve_e820() Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` [PATCH 06/13] memblock: Implement for_each_free_mem_range() Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:15 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` [PATCH 07/13] x86: Replace memblock_x86_find_in_range_size() with for_each_free_mem_range() Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` [PATCH 08/13] memblock, x86: Make free_all_memory_core_early() explicitly free lowmem only Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` [PATCH 09/13] memblock, x86: Replace __get_free_all_memory_range() with for_each_free_mem_range() Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-07-12 9:16 ` [PATCH 10/13] memblock, x86: Reimplement memblock_find_dma_reserve() using iterators Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` [PATCH 11/13] x86: Use absent_pages_in_range() instead of memblock_x86_hole_size() Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` [PATCH 12/13] memblock, x86: Make ARCH_DISCARD_MEMBLOCK a config option Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 9:46 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` [PATCH 13/13] memblock, x86: Replace memblock_x86_reserve/free_range() with generic ones Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 9:16 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 20:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-14 20:20 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 20:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-14 20:32 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 20:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-14 20:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-14 20:41 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 20:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-26 21:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-07-26 21:46 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-27 0:59 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-07-27 8:07 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-12 23:26 ` [PATCHSET x86/mm] memblock, x86: Allow node info in memblock and remove x86 specific memblock code Yinghai Lu
2011-07-13 3:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-13 9:16 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-13 9:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-13 19:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-07-14 9:42 ` [PATCH 2.5/13] memblock: Use __meminit[data] instead of __init[data] Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 21:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-07-14 21:24 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-15 5:45 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-15 5:45 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-14 9:49 ` [PATCHSET x86/mm] memblock, x86: Allow node info in memblock and remove x86 specific memblock code Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1310462166-31469-11-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).