On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 15:25 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > [PATCH] mm: allocate usemap at first instead of mem_map in sparse_init
>
> > so try to allocate usemap at first altogether.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> > index d3cb085..782ebe5 100644
> > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ void __init sparse_init(void)
> > unsigned long pnum;
> > struct page *map;
> > unsigned long *usemap;
> > - struct page **section_map;
> > + unsigned long **usemap_map;
> > int size;
> > int node;
> >
> > @@ -305,27 +305,31 @@ void __init sparse_init(void)
> > * make next 2M slip to one more 2M later.
> > * then in big system, the memmory will have a lot hole...
> > * here try to allocate 2M pages continously.
>
> Comments are x86-64 specific. On ppc its 16MB chunks :(
>
>
>
> > + *
> > + * powerpc hope to sparse_init_one_section right after each
> > + * sparse_early_mem_map_alloc, so allocate usemap_map
> > + * at first.
> > */
> > - size = sizeof(struct page *) * NR_MEM_SECTIONS;
> > - section_map = alloc_bootmem(size);
> > - if (!section_map)
> > - panic("can not allocate section_map\n");
> > + size = sizeof(unsigned long *) * NR_MEM_SECTIONS;
> > + usemap_map = alloc_bootmem(size);
> > + if (!usemap_map)
> > + panic("can not allocate usemap_map\n");
> >
> > for (pnum = 0; pnum < NR_MEM_SECTIONS; pnum++) {
> > if (!present_section_nr(pnum))
> > continue;
> > - section_map[pnum] = sparse_early_mem_map_alloc(pnum);
> > + usemap_map[pnum] = sparse_early_usemap_alloc(pnum);
> > }
> >
> > for (pnum = 0; pnum < NR_MEM_SECTIONS; pnum++) {
> > if (!present_section_nr(pnum))
> > continue;
> >
> > - map = section_map[pnum];
> > + map = sparse_early_mem_map_alloc(pnum);
> > if (!map)
> > continue;
> >
> > - usemap = sparse_early_usemap_alloc(pnum);
> > + usemap = usemap_map[pnum];
> > if (!usemap)
> > continue;
>
> You may want to move this check before doing sparse_early_mem_map_alloc
> (). We are also not handling errors properly (freeing up the unused
> map or usemap) if we "continue". I know the original code is this way,
> but you touched it last :)
Yes. could avoid some leak...
YH
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
