lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 5/6] kcore: check physical memory range in correct way.
    On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:24:11 +0800
    Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:

    > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:19:27PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
    > >From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    > >
    > >For /proc/kcore, each arch registers its memory range by kclist_add().
    > >In usual,
    > > - range of physical memory
    > > - range of vmalloc area
    > > - text, etc...
    > >are registered but "range of physical memory" has some troubles.
    > >
    > >It doesn't updated at memory hotplug and it tend to include
    > >unnecessary memory holes. Now, /proc/iomem (kernel/resource.c)
    > >includes required physical memory range information and it's
    > >properly updated at memory hotplug. Then, it's good to avoid
    > >using its own code(duplicating information) and to rebuild
    > >kclist for physical memory based on /proc/iomem.
    > >
    > >Note: IIUC, /proc/iomem information is used for kdump.
    > >
    > >Changelog: v2 -> v3
    > > - fixed HIGHMEM codes.(At least, no compile error)
    > > - enhnanced sanity chesk in !HIGHMEM codes. (See kclist_add_private())
    > > - after this, x86-32, ia64, sh, powerpc has no private kclist codes.
    > > x86-64 and mips still have some.
    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > >Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16/include/linux/ioport.h
    > >===================================================================
    > >--- mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16.orig/include/linux/ioport.h
    > >+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16/include/linux/ioport.h
    > >@@ -186,5 +186,13 @@ extern void __devm_release_region(struct
    > > extern int iomem_map_sanity_check(resource_size_t addr, unsigned long size);
    > > extern int iomem_is_exclusive(u64 addr);
    > >
    > >+/*
    > >+ * Walk through all SYSTEM_RAM which is registered as resource.
    > >+ * arg is (start_pfn, nr_pages, private_arg_pointer)
    > >+ */
    > >+extern int walk_memory_resource(unsigned long start_pfn,
    > >+ unsigned long nr_pages, void *arg,
    > >+ int (*func)(unsigned long, unsigned long, void *));
    > >+
    > > #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
    > > #endif /* _LINUX_IOPORT_H */
    > >Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
    > >===================================================================
    > >--- mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16.orig/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
    > >+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h
    > >@@ -191,13 +191,6 @@ static inline void register_page_bootmem
    > >
    > > #endif /* ! CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG */
    > >
    > >-/*
    > >- * Walk through all memory which is registered as resource.
    > >- * arg is (start_pfn, nr_pages, private_arg_pointer)
    > >- */
    > >-extern int walk_memory_resource(unsigned long start_pfn,
    > >- unsigned long nr_pages, void *arg,
    > >- int (*func)(unsigned long, unsigned long, void *));
    >
    >
    > Why moving it? :)
    >
    Ah, this declaration is in memory_hotplug.h because it's only for memory
    hotplug. For generic use, it's better to move this to iomem.h as other
    resource related ops, I think.



    > >
    > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
    > >
    > >Index: mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16/kernel/resource.c
    > >===================================================================
    > >--- mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16.orig/kernel/resource.c
    > >+++ mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16/kernel/resource.c
    > >@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ int release_resource(struct resource *ol
    > >
    > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(release_resource);
    > >
    > >-#if defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG) && !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_WALK_MEMORY)
    > >+#if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_WALK_MEMORY)
    > > /*
    > > * Finds the lowest memory reosurce exists within [res->start.res->end)
    > > * the caller must specify res->start, res->end, res->flags.
    >
    >
    > Shouldn't this part be in patch 6/6 instead of this one?
    >
    Hmm, ok, I'll reorder 5/6 and 6/6 and define walk_system_ram_range() before
    this patch.

    Thanks,
    -Kame



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-29 02:27    [W:0.028 / U:62.176 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site