x86, mm: Add comments for step_size shift
PATCH 1/1 x86, mm: Add comments for step_size shift
As request by hpa, add comments for why we choose 5 for step size shift.
--- arch/x86/mm/init.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
arch/x86/mm/init.c +18 -3
@@ -395,8 +395,23 @@ static unsigned long __init init_range_mreturn mapped_ram_size; } -/* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 */ -#define STEP_SIZE_SHIFT 5 +static unsigned long __init get_new_step_size (unsigned long step_size) +{ +/* +* initial mapped size is PMD_SIZE, aka 2M. +* We can not set step_size to be PUD_SIZE aka 1G yet. +* In worse case, when 1G is cross the 1G boundary, and +* PG_LEVEL_2M is not set, we will need 1+1+512 pages (aka 2M + 8k) +* to map 1G range with PTE. Use 5 as shift for now. +*/ +unsigned long new_step_size = step_size <<5 ; + +if (new_step_size > step_size) + step_size = new_step_size; + +return step_size; +} +void __init init_mem_mapping (void ) {unsigned long end, real_end, start, last_start;
@@ -445,7 +460,7 @@ void __init init_mem_mapping(void) min_pfn_mapped = last_start >>PAGE_SHIFT ;/* only increase step_size after big range get mapped */ if (new_mapped_ram_size > mapped_ram_size) - step_size <<=STEP_SIZE_SHIFT ; + step_size =get_new_step_size (step_size); mapped_ram_size += new_mapped_ram_size; }
Quoted 20 lines · Yinghai Lu
As request by hpa, add comments for why we choose 5 for step size shift.
Signed-off-by Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Tang Chen <[email protected]>Tested-by Tang Chen <[email protected]>--- arch/x86/mm/init.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/init.c
===================================================================arch/x86/mm/init.c +0
-1@@ -395,8 +395,23 @@ static unsigned long __init init_range_mreturn mapped_ram_size; } -/* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 */
arch/x86/mm/init.c static unsigned long __init init_range_m · line 406
Quoted 10 lines
arch/x86/mm/init.c +9
-1-#define STEP_SIZE_SHIFT 5 +static unsigned long __init get_new_step_size (unsigned long step_size) +{ +/* +* initial mapped size is PMD_SIZE, aka 2M. +* We can not set step_size to be PUD_SIZE aka 1G yet. +* In worse case, when 1G is cross the 1G boundary, and +* PG_LEVEL_2M is not set, we will need 1+1+512 pages (aka 2M + 8k) +* to map 1G range with PTE. Use 5 as shift for now. +*/
This is much more readable:
+ /*
+ * initial mapped size is PMD_SIZE (2M). + * We can not set step_size to be PUD_SIZE (1G) yet. + * In the worst case, when we cross the 1G boundary, and + * PG_LEVEL_2M is not set, we will need 1+1+512 pages (2M+8k) + * to map 1G range with PTE. Use 5 as shift for now. + */
Quoted 12 lines
arch/x86/mm/init.c +8
-0+unsigned long new_step_size = step_size <<5 ; + +if (new_step_size > step_size) + step_size = new_step_size; + +return step_size; +} +void __init init_mem_mapping (void ) {unsigned long end, real_end, start, last_start;
arch/x86/mm/init.c void __init init_mem_mapping(void) · line 465
Quoted 7 lines
arch/x86/mm/init.c +1
-1@@ -445,7 +460,7 @@ void __init init_mem_mapping(void) min_pfn_mapped = last_start >>PAGE_SHIFT ;/* only increase step_size after big range get mapped */ if (new_mapped_ram_size > mapped_ram_size) - step_size <<=STEP_SIZE_SHIFT ; + step_size =get_new_step_size (step_size); mapped_ram_size += new_mapped_ram_size; }
As-is the changelog claims it only adds comments - but it obviously does more than that ...
Yinghai, for the 1001st time, please use the customary changelog style we use in the kernel:
" Current code does (A), this has a problem when (B).
We can improve this doing (C), because (D)."
I'm also going to suggest something radical: how about you keep this sugestion of mine in mind for _all_ future patches so I don't have to repeat it for every 3rd patch like I had to for the past 4 years, non-stop? Okay?
Thanks,
Ingo
Quoted 36 lines · Ingo Molnar
Quoted 20 lines · Yinghai Lu
As request by hpa, add comments for why we choose 5 for step size shift.
Signed-off-by Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Tang Chen <[email protected]>Tested-by Tang Chen <[email protected]>--- arch/x86/mm/init.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/init.c
===================================================================arch/x86/mm/init.c +0
-1@@ -395,8 +395,23 @@ static unsigned long __init init_range_mreturn mapped_ram_size; } -/* (PUD_SHIFT-PMD_SHIFT)/2 */ arch/x86/mm/init.c static unsigned long __init init_range_m · line 406
Quoted 10 lines
arch/x86/mm/init.c +9
-1-#define STEP_SIZE_SHIFT 5 +static unsigned long __init get_new_step_size (unsigned long step_size) +{ +/* +* initial mapped size is PMD_SIZE, aka 2M. +* We can not set step_size to be PUD_SIZE aka 1G yet. +* In worse case, when 1G is cross the 1G boundary, and +* PG_LEVEL_2M is not set, we will need 1+1+512 pages (aka 2M + 8k) +* to map 1G range with PTE. Use 5 as shift for now. +*/ This is much more readable:
Review
Quoted 7 lines
(quoted diff) +7
-0+ /* + * initial mapped size is PMD_SIZE (2M). + * We can not set step_size to be PUD_SIZE (1G) yet. + * In the worst case, when we cross the 1G boundary, and + * PG_LEVEL_2M is not set, we will need 1+1+512 pages (2M+8k) + * to map 1G range with PTE. Use 5 as shift for now. + */
ok.
Quoted 28 lines
Quoted 14 lines
arch/x86/mm/init.c +8
-0+unsigned long new_step_size = step_size <<5 ; + +if (new_step_size > step_size) + step_size = new_step_size; + +return step_size; +} +void __init init_mem_mapping (void ) {unsigned long end, real_end, start, last_start;arch/x86/mm/init.c void __init init_mem_mapping(void) · line 465
Quoted 7 lines
arch/x86/mm/init.c +1
-1@@ -445,7 +460,7 @@ void __init init_mem_mapping(void) min_pfn_mapped = last_start >>PAGE_SHIFT ;/* only increase step_size after big range get mapped */ if (new_mapped_ram_size > mapped_ram_size) - step_size <<=STEP_SIZE_SHIFT ; + step_size =get_new_step_size (step_size); mapped_ram_size += new_mapped_ram_size; }As-is the changelog claims it only adds comments - but it obviously does more than that ...
Yinghai, for the 1001st time, please use the customary changelog style we use in the kernel:
Quoted 7 lines
" Current code does (A), this has a problem when (B).
We can improve this doing (C), because (D)."I'm also going to suggest something radical: how about you keep this sugestion of mine in mind for _all_ future patches so I don't have to repeat it for every 3rd patch like I had to for the past 4 years, non-stop? Okay?
ok.
Sent updated one with new changelog and comments.
Thanks
Yinghai