Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] memblock: Improve memblock to support allocationfrom lower address.

[Toshi Kani]

On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 17:30 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
 :
> @@ -100,8 +180,7 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
>  					phys_addr_t end, phys_addr_t size,
>  					phys_addr_t align, int nid)
>  {
> -	phys_addr_t this_start, this_end, cand;
> -	u64 i;
> +	phys_addr_t ret;
>  
>  	/* pump up @end */
>  	if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE)
> @@ -111,18 +190,22 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
>  	start = max_t(phys_addr_t, start, PAGE_SIZE);
>  	end = max(start, end);
>  
> -	for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
> -		this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
> -		this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
> +	if (memblock_direction_bottom_up()) {
> +		/*
> +		 * MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE is 0, which is less than the end
> +		 * of kernel image. So callers specify MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE
> +		 * as @start is OK.
> +		 */
> +		start =	max(start, __pa_symbol(_end)); /* End of kernel image. */
>  
> -		if (this_end < size)
> -			continue;
> +		ret = __memblock_find_range(start, end, size, align, nid);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
>  
> -		cand = round_down(this_end - size, align);
> -		if (cand >= this_start)
> -			return cand;
> +		pr_warn("memblock: Failed to allocate memory in bottom up direction. Now try top down direction.\n");

Is there any chance that this retry will succeed given that start and
end are still the same?

Thanks,
-Toshi


>  	}
> -	return 0;
> +
> +	return __memblock_find_range_rev(start, end, size, align, nid);
>  }
>  
>  /**


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/