Hi Jia,

Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:

[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[also build test WARNING on v4.16 next-20180329]
[cannot apply to arm64/for-next/core]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]

url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Jia-He/optimize-memblock_next_valid_pfn-and-early_pfn_valid-on-arm-and-arm64/20180402-131223
config: arm64-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 7.2.0-11) 7.2.0
reproduce:
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make.cross ARCH=arm64

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x39a80): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_next_valid_pfn() to the variable .meminit.data:$d
The function memblock_next_valid_pfn() references
the variable __meminitdata $d.
This is often because memblock_next_valid_pfn lacks a __meminitdata
annotation or the annotation of $d is wrong.

---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all Intel Corporation

Attachments:

(No filename) (1.33 kB)
.config.gz (57.48 kB)
Download all attachments

2018-04-02 19:21:52

On 4/2/2018 3:53 PM, Ard Biesheuvel Wrote:
> On 2 April 2018 at 09:49, Jia He <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/2018 2:55 PM, Ard Biesheuvel Wrote:
>>> On 2 April 2018 at 04:30, Jia He <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Commit b92df1de5d28 ("mm: page_alloc: skip over regions of invalid pfns
>>>> where possible") optimized the loop in memmap_init_zone(). But it causes
>>>> possible panic bug. So Daniel Vacek reverted it later.
>>>>
>>>> But as suggested by Daniel Vacek, it is fine to using memblock to skip
>>>> gaps and finding next valid frame with CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID.
>>>>
>>>> On arm and arm64, memblock is used by default. But generic version of
>>>> pfn_valid() is based on mem sections and memblock_next_valid_pfn() does
>>>> not always return the next valid one but skips more resulting in some
>>>> valid frames to be skipped (as if they were invalid). And that's why
>>>> kernel was eventually crashing on some !arm machines.
>>>>
>>>> And as verified by Eugeniu Rosca, arm can benifit from commit
>>>> b92df1de5d28. So remain the memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm{,64} and move
>>>> the related codes to arm64 arch directory.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Daniel Vacek <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jia He <[email protected]>
>>> Hello Jia,
>>>
>>> Apologies for chiming in late.
>> no problem, thanks for your comments ;-)
>>>
>>> If we are going to rearchitect this, I'd rather we change the loop in
>>> memmap_init_zone() so that we skip to the next valid PFN directly
>>> rather than skipping to the last invalid PFN so that the pfn++ in the
>> hmm... Maybe this macro name makes you confused
>>
>> pfn = skip_to_last_invalid_pfn(pfn);
>>
>> how about skip_to_next_valid_pfn?
>>
>>> for () results in the next value. Can we replace the pfn++ there with
>>> a function calls that defaults to 'return pfn + 1', but does the skip
>>> for architectures that implement it?
>> I am not sure I understand your question here.
>> With this patch, on !arm arches, skip_to_last_invalid_pfn is equal to (pfn),
>> and will be increased
>> when for{} loop continue. We only *skip* to the start pfn of next valid
>> region when
>> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK and CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID(arm/arm64 supports
>> both).
>>
> What I am saying is that the loop in memmap_init_zone
>
> for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) { ... }
>
> should be replaced by something like
>
> for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn = next_valid_pfn(pfn))
After further thinking, IMO, pfn = next_valid_pfn(pfn) might have impact on

memmap_init_zone loop.

e.g.context != MEMMAP_EARLY, pfn will not be checked by early_pfn_valid, thus
It will change the memhotplug logic.

So I would choose the old implementation:
if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
pfn = next_valid_pfn(pfn) - 1;
continue;
}
Any comments? Thanks

--
Cheers,
Jia