On 12/05/2013 10:34 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Grygorii,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:48 PM, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
+#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
+ memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \
+ BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES)
Also, do we really need this align variant separate when the caller
can simply specify 0 for the default?
Unfortunately Yes.
We need it to keep compatibility with bootmem/nobootmem
which don't handle 0 as default align value.
Hmm... why wouldn't just interpreting 0 to SMP_CACHE_BYTES in the
memblock_virt*() function work?
Problem is not with memblock_virt*(). The issue will happen in case if
memblock or nobootmem are disabled in below code (memblock_virt*() is disabled).
+/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
+#define memblock_virt_alloc(x) \
+ __alloc_bootmem(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
which will be transformed to
+/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
+#define memblock_virt_alloc(x, align) \
+ __alloc_bootmem(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
and used as
memblock_virt_alloc(size, 0);
so, by default bootmem code will use 0 as default alignment and not
SMP_CACHE_BYTES
and that is wrong.
Looks like you didn't understood the suggestion completely.
The fall back inline will look like below .....
static inline memblock_virt_alloc(x, align)
{
if (align == 0)
align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES
__alloc_bootmem(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT);
}
I understand. thanks.
Regards,
-grygorii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
