lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/11] ksm: reorganize ksm_check_stable_tree
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 04:07:17PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Memory hotremove's ksm_check_stable_tree() is pitifully inefficient
> > > (restarting whenever it finds a stale node to remove), but rearrange
> > > so that at least it does not needlessly restart from nid 0 each time.
> > > And add a couple of comments: here is why we keep pfn instead of page.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/ksm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- mmotm.orig/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-25 14:36:52.152205940 -0800
> > > +++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-25 14:36:53.244205966 -0800
> > > @@ -1830,31 +1830,36 @@ void ksm_migrate_page(struct page *newpa
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_MIGRATION */
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
> > > -static struct stable_node *ksm_check_stable_tree(unsigned long start_pfn,
> > > - unsigned long end_pfn)
> > > +static void ksm_check_stable_tree(unsigned long start_pfn,
> > > + unsigned long end_pfn)
> > > {
> > > + struct stable_node *stable_node;
> > > struct rb_node *node;
> > > int nid;
> > >
> > > - for (nid = 0; nid < nr_node_ids; nid++)
> > > - for (node = rb_first(&root_stable_tree[nid]); node;
> > > - node = rb_next(node)) {
> > > - struct stable_node *stable_node;
> > > -
> > > + for (nid = 0; nid < nr_node_ids; nid++) {
> > > + node = rb_first(&root_stable_tree[nid]);
> > > + while (node) {
> >
> > This is not your fault, the old code is wrong too. It is assuming that all
> > nodes are populated in numeric orders with no holes. It won't work if just
> > two nodes 0 and 4 are online. It should be using for_each_online_node().
>
> If the old code is wrong, it probably would be my fault! But I believe
> this is okay: these rb_roots we're looking at, they are in memory which
> is not being offlined, and the trees for offline nodes will simply be
> empty, won't they? Something's badly wrong if otherwise.
>

I would expect them to be empty but that was not the problem I had in
mind. Unfortunately I mixed up nr_online_ids and nr_node_ids and read
the loop incorrectly. What you have is fine.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-14 13:01    [W:0.060 / U:3.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site