lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/11] x86, memblock: Set lowest limit for memblock_alloc_base_nid().
From
Date
On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 10:05 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 08:37 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 17:37 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> memblock_alloc_base_nid() is a common API of memblock. And it calls
> >> memblock_find_in_range_node() with %start = 0, which means it has no
> >> limit for the lowest address by default.
> >>
> >> memblock_find_in_range_node(0, max_addr, size, align, nid);
> >>
> >> Since we introduced current_limit_low to memblock, if we have no limit
> >> for the lowest address or we are not sure, we should pass
> >> MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE to %start so that it will be limited by the
> >> default low limit.
> >>
> >> dma_contiguous_reserve() and setup_log_buf() will eventually call
> >> memblock_alloc_base_nid() to allocate memory. So if the allocation order
> >> is from low to high, they will allocate memory from the lowest limit
> >> to higher memory.
> >
> > This requires the callers to use MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE instead of 0.
> > Is there a good way to make sure that all callers will follow this rule
> > going forward? Perhaps, memblock_find_in_range_node() should emit some
> > message if 0 is passed when current_order is low to high and the boot
> > option is specified?
>
> How about set this as the default rule:
>
> When using from low to high order, always allocate memory from
> current_limit_low.
>
> So far, I think only movablenode boot option will use this order.

Sounds good to me.

> > Similarly, I wonder if we should have a check to the allocation size to
> > make sure that all allocations will stay small in this case.
> >
>
> We can check the size. But what is the stragety after we found that the
> size
> is too large ? Do we refuse to allocate memory ? I don't think so.

We can just add a log message. No need to fail.

> I think only relocate_initrd() and reserve_crachkernel() could allocate
> large
> memory. reserve_crachkernel() is easy to reorder, but reordering
> relocate_initrd()
> is difficult because acpi_initrd_override() need to access to it with va.
>
> I think on most servers, we don't need to do relocate_initrd(). initrd
> will be
> loaded to mapped memory in normal situation. Can we just leave it there ?

Since this approach relies on the assumption that all allocations are
small enough, it would be nice to have a way to verify if it remains
true. How about we measure a total amount of allocations while the
order is low to high, and log it when switched to high to low? This
way, we can easily monitor the usage.

Thanks,
-Toshi



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-04 17:41    [W:0.076 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site