Prev: [PATCH 8/8] staging: vt6656: tcrc.c: Fixed coding style issues
Next: [PATCH 0/2] perf: Use LBR for machine/oops debugging
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt on 29 Mar 2010 19:40
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:37 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > We just need a lmb.alloc_limit and a lmb_set_alloc_limit() which arch
> > code calls when it knows what the alloc limit is (and can call multiple
> > times during boot). Or maybe it should be called "default_alloc_limit",
> > but that's getting a bit long winded.
>
> ok, I will get_max_mapped() for now, an will change to new field...later

No. Do it now. get_max_mapped() sucks as an identifier.

Cheers,
Ben.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Yinghai Lu on 29 Mar 2010 20:00
On 03/29/2010 04:34 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:37 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> We just need a lmb.alloc_limit and a lmb_set_alloc_limit() which arch
>>> code calls when it knows what the alloc limit is (and can call multiple
>>> times during boot). Or maybe it should be called "default_alloc_limit",
>>> but that's getting a bit long winded.
>>
>> ok, I will get_max_mapped() for now, an will change to new field...later
>
> No. Do it now. get_max_mapped() sucks as an identifier.
>

ok, can i reuse rmo_size, or introduce one new member in struct lmb.

default_limit?

Thanks

Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Yinghai Lu on 29 Mar 2010 20:10
On 03/29/2010 04:31 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 09:20 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>
>> But that's my point. You shouldn't need to touch the existing API, and
>> you shouldn't need to add a new parallel API. You should just be able to
>> add the logic for doubling the array in the lmb core, and then everyone
>> gets dynamically expandable lmb. I don't see any reason why we want to
>> have two APIs.
>
> Ack.
ok, we can merge them later.
>
>>>> It seems to me that rather than adding these "special" routines that
>>>> check for enough space on the way in, instead you should be checking in
>>>> lmb_add_region() - which is where AFAICS all allocs/frees/reserves
>>>> eventually end up if they need to insert a new region.
>>>
>>> later i prefer to replace lmb_alloc with find_lmb_area + reserve_lmb.
>>
>> Why? The existing code has been working for years and is well tested?
>
> I still don't totally understand why he needs a find_lmb_area()
> anyways.
>
> It might be justified ... or not. I just want it to be better
> documented.


current changelog for that

------------------

Subject: [PATCH 6/31] lmb: Add lmb_find_area()

It will try find area according with size/align in specified range (start, end).

Need use it find correct buffer for new lmb.reserved.region.

also make it more easy for x86 to use lmb.
x86 early_res is using find/reserve pattern instead of alloc.

lmb_find_area() will honor goal

When we need temporary buff for range array etc for range work, if We are using
lmb_alloc(), We will need to add some post fix code for buffer that is used
by range array, because it is in the lmb.reserved already.

----------------

in short: It could make us to avoid use the range that we are going to reserve,
when we try to get new position new lmb.reserved.region.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Michael Ellerman on 30 Mar 2010 00:20
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 16:53 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 03/29/2010 04:34 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:37 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>> We just need a lmb.alloc_limit and a lmb_set_alloc_limit() which arch
> >>> code calls when it knows what the alloc limit is (and can call multiple
> >>> times during boot). Or maybe it should be called "default_alloc_limit",
> >>> but that's getting a bit long winded.
> >>
> >> ok, I will get_max_mapped() for now, an will change to new field...later
> >
> > No. Do it now. get_max_mapped() sucks as an identifier.
> >
>
> ok, can i reuse rmo_size, or introduce one new member in struct lmb.
>
> default_limit?

alloc_limit or default_alloc_limit

cheers
From: Yinghai Lu on 30 Mar 2010 00:30
On 03/29/2010 09:13 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 16:53 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On 03/29/2010 04:34 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:37 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>> We just need a lmb.alloc_limit and a lmb_set_alloc_limit() which arch
>>>>> code calls when it knows what the alloc limit is (and can call multiple
>>>>> times during boot). Or maybe it should be called "default_alloc_limit",
>>>>> but that's getting a bit long winded.
>>>>
>>>> ok, I will get_max_mapped() for now, an will change to new field...later
>>>
>>> No. Do it now. get_max_mapped() sucks as an identifier.
>>>
>>
>> ok, can i reuse rmo_size, or introduce one new member in struct lmb.
>>
>> default_limit?
>
> alloc_limit or default_alloc_limit
>
looks that is not accurate.

if someone want to find some area, but not going to access that range, then we should let them alloc it.

how about access_limit?

Thanks

Yinghai Lu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: [PATCH 8/8] staging: vt6656: tcrc.c: Fixed coding style issues
Next: [PATCH 0/2] perf: Use LBR for machine/oops debugging