memblock: Introduce memblock_reserve_node()
Commit Message
It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
---
mm/memblock.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Comments
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
> to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
>
> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
>
> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
What problem does this patch solve?
June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>
>> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
>> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
>> to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
>>
>> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
>> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
>
> What problem does this patch solve?
>
If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need
memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case.
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote:
> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> >
> >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
> >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
> >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
> >>
> >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
> >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
> >
> > What problem does this patch solve?
> >
>
> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need
> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still
unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we
still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later.
> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case.
June 26, 2023 2:21 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote:
>
>> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>
>> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
>> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
>> to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
>>
>> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
>> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
>>
>> What problem does this patch solve?
>>
>> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need
>> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
>
> When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still
> unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we
> still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later.
Even so, we still need to pass the 'flags' to the new reserve region.
choose_memblock_flags() may return MEMBLOCK_MIRROR in memblock_alloc_range_nid(),
memblock_reserve() couldn't pass this flag in this case.
>> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
>> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case.
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:13:16AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote:
> June 26, 2023 2:21 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote:
> >
> >> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> >>
> >> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
> >> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
> >> to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
> >>
> >> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
> >> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
> >>
> >> What problem does this patch solve?
> >>
> >> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need
> >> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
> >
> > When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still
> > unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we
> > still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later.
>
> Even so, we still need to pass the 'flags' to the new reserve region.
> choose_memblock_flags() may return MEMBLOCK_MIRROR in memblock_alloc_range_nid(),
> memblock_reserve() couldn't pass this flag in this case.
flags are only relevant to memblock.memory, we don't care about the flags
in memblock.reserved.
> >> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
> >> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case.
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Mike.
June 27, 2023 10:33 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:13:16AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote:
>
>> June 26, 2023 2:21 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 07:39:10AM +0000, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>
>> June 25, 2023 1:08 PM, "Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:46:22AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>>
>> It only returns address now in memblock_find_in_range_node(), we can add a
>> parameter pointing to integer for node id of the range, which can be used
>> to pass the node id to the new reserve region.
>>
>> Introduce memblock_reserve_node() so that the node id can be passed to
>> the reserve region in memblock_alloc_range_nid().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
>>
>> What problem does this patch solve?
>>
>> If we set nid and flags in memblock_alloc_range_nid(), we may not need
>> memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
>>
>> When memblock_reserve() is called before NUMA setup, the node ids are still
>> unset in memblock.memory, so very early reservations will be missed and we
>> still have to update node ids in memblock.reserved later.
>>
>> Even so, we still need to pass the 'flags' to the new reserve region.
>> choose_memblock_flags() may return MEMBLOCK_MIRROR in memblock_alloc_range_nid(),
>> memblock_reserve() couldn't pass this flag in this case.
>
> flags are only relevant to memblock.memory, we don't care about the flags
> in memblock.reserved.
>
get it.
>> I tested this patch and delete memblock_set_node() in memmap_init_reserved_pages().
>> It works fine. I did not delete memblock_set_node() in this patch just in case.
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely yours,
>> Mike.
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
@@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ bool __init_memblock memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type *type,
* @align: alignment of free area to find
* @nid: nid of the free area to find, %NUMA_NO_NODE for any node
* @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes
+ * @p_nid: ptr to int for nid of the range, can be %NULL
*
* Utility called from memblock_find_in_range_node(), find free area bottom-up.
*
@@ -213,12 +214,12 @@ bool __init_memblock memblock_overlaps_region(struct memblock_type *type,
static phys_addr_t __init_memblock
__memblock_find_range_bottom_up(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid,
- enum memblock_flags flags)
+ enum memblock_flags flags, int *p_nid)
{
phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
u64 i;
- for_each_free_mem_range(i, nid, flags, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
+ for_each_free_mem_range(i, nid, flags, &this_start, &this_end, p_nid) {
this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
@@ -239,6 +240,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
* @align: alignment of free area to find
* @nid: nid of the free area to find, %NUMA_NO_NODE for any node
* @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes
+ * @p_nid: ptr to int for nid of the range, can be %NULL
*
* Utility called from memblock_find_in_range_node(), find free area top-down.
*
@@ -248,13 +250,13 @@ __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
static phys_addr_t __init_memblock
__memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid,
- enum memblock_flags flags)
+ enum memblock_flags flags, int *p_nid)
{
phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
u64 i;
for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, flags, &this_start, &this_end,
- NULL) {
+ p_nid) {
this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
@@ -278,6 +280,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
* %MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
* @nid: nid of the free area to find, %NUMA_NO_NODE for any node
* @flags: pick from blocks based on memory attributes
+ * @p_nid: ptr to int for nid of the range, can be %NULL
*
* Find @size free area aligned to @align in the specified range and node.
*
@@ -287,7 +290,7 @@ __memblock_find_range_top_down(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end,
static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start,
phys_addr_t end, int nid,
- enum memblock_flags flags)
+ enum memblock_flags flags, int *p_nid)
{
/* pump up @end */
if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE ||
@@ -300,10 +303,10 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size,
if (memblock_bottom_up())
return __memblock_find_range_bottom_up(start, end, size, align,
- nid, flags);
+ nid, flags, p_nid);
else
return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align,
- nid, flags);
+ nid, flags, p_nid);
}
/**
@@ -328,7 +331,7 @@ static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range(phys_addr_t start,
again:
ret = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end,
- NUMA_NO_NODE, flags);
+ NUMA_NO_NODE, flags, NULL);
if (!ret && (flags & MEMBLOCK_MIRROR)) {
pr_warn_ratelimited("Could not allocate %pap bytes of mirrored memory\n",
@@ -863,6 +866,17 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_phys_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
return memblock_remove_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
}
+static int __init_memblock memblock_reserve_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
+ int nid, enum memblock_flags flags)
+{
+ phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
+
+ memblock_dbg("%s: [%pa-%pa] nid=%d flags=%x %pS\n", __func__,
+ &base, &end, nid, flags, (void *)_RET_IP_);
+
+ return memblock_add_range(&memblock.reserved, base, size, nid, flags);
+}
+
int __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
phys_addr_t end = base + size - 1;
@@ -1389,6 +1403,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
{
enum memblock_flags flags = choose_memblock_flags();
phys_addr_t found;
+ int p_nid;
if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n"))
nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
@@ -1401,15 +1416,15 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
again:
found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, nid,
- flags);
- if (found && !memblock_reserve(found, size))
+ flags, &p_nid);
+ if (found && !memblock_reserve_node(found, size, p_nid, flags))
goto done;
if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE && !exact_nid) {
found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start,
end, NUMA_NO_NODE,
- flags);
- if (found && !memblock_reserve(found, size))
+ flags, &p_nid);
+ if (found && !memblock_reserve_node(found, size, p_nid, flags))
goto done;
}