From: Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org, Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: return zero_resv_unavail optimization
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:38:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181002143821.5112-3-msys.mizuma@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181002143821.5112-1-msys.mizuma@gmail.com>
From: Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>
When checking for valid pfns in zero_resv_unavail(), it is not necessary to
verify that pfns within pageblock_nr_pages ranges are valid, only the first
one needs to be checked. This is because memory for pages are allocated in
contiguous chunks that contain pageblock_nr_pages struct pages.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@jp.fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 3b9d89e..bd5b7e4 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -6440,6 +6440,29 @@ void __init free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
}
#if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK) && !defined(CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP)
+
+/*
+ * Zero all valid struct pages in range [spfn, epfn), return number of struct
+ * pages zeroed
+ */
+static u64 zero_pfn_range(unsigned long spfn, unsigned long epfn)
+{
+ unsigned long pfn;
+ u64 pgcnt = 0;
+
+ for (pfn = spfn; pfn < epfn; pfn++) {
+ if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))) {
+ pfn = ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)
+ + pageblock_nr_pages - 1;
+ continue;
+ }
+ mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
+ pgcnt++;
+ }
+
+ return pgcnt;
+}
+
/*
* Only struct pages that are backed by physical memory are zeroed and
* initialized by going through __init_single_page(). But, there are some
@@ -6455,7 +6478,6 @@ void __init free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
void __init zero_resv_unavail(void)
{
phys_addr_t start, end;
- unsigned long pfn;
u64 i, pgcnt;
phys_addr_t next = 0;
@@ -6465,34 +6487,18 @@ void __init zero_resv_unavail(void)
pgcnt = 0;
for_each_mem_range(i, &memblock.memory, NULL,
NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, NULL) {
- if (next < start) {
- for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(next); pfn < PFN_UP(start); pfn++) {
- if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)))
- continue;
- mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
- pgcnt++;
- }
- }
+ if (next < start)
+ pgcnt += zero_pfn_range(PFN_DOWN(next), PFN_UP(start));
next = end;
}
- for (pfn = PFN_DOWN(next); pfn < max_pfn; pfn++) {
- if (!pfn_valid(ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)))
- continue;
- mm_zero_struct_page(pfn_to_page(pfn));
- pgcnt++;
- }
-
+ pgcnt += zero_pfn_range(PFN_DOWN(next), max_pfn);
/*
* Struct pages that do not have backing memory. This could be because
* firmware is using some of this memory, or for some other reasons.
- * Once memblock is changed so such behaviour is not allowed: i.e.
- * list of "reserved" memory must be a subset of list of "memory", then
- * this code can be removed.
*/
if (pgcnt)
pr_info("Zeroed struct page in unavailable ranges: %lld pages", pgcnt);
-
}
#endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK && !CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP */
--
2.18.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-02 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-02 14:38 [PATCH v3 0/3] mm: Fix for movable_node boot option Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-10-02 14:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-10-10 17:27 ` Pavel Tatashin
2018-10-10 23:29 ` Andrew Morton
2018-10-02 14:38 ` Masayoshi Mizuma [this message]
2018-10-10 9:39 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: return zero_resv_unavail optimization Oscar Salvador
2018-10-02 14:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] Revert "x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved" Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-10-09 15:14 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] mm: Fix for movable_node boot option Masayoshi Mizuma
2018-10-10 6:33 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20181002143821.5112-3-msys.mizuma@gmail.com \
--to=msys.mizuma@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@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).