From: mina86@mina86.com (Michal Nazarewicz) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:24:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: fix MAX_ORDER for 64K pagesize In-Reply-To: <1403201524.32688.62.camel@deneb.redhat.com> References: <1402522435-13884-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com> <1403201524.32688.62.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jun 19 2014, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 20:32 +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: >> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c >> index 5dba293..6e657ce 100644 >> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c >> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c >> @@ -801,7 +801,15 @@ void __init init_cma_reserved_pageblock(struct page *page) >> >> set_page_refcounted(page); >> set_pageblock_migratetype(page, MIGRATE_CMA); >> - __free_pages(page, pageblock_order); >> + if (pageblock_order > MAX_ORDER) { >> + struct page *subpage = p; >> + unsigned count = 1 << (pageblock_order - MAX_ORDER); >> + do { >> + __free_pages(subpage, pageblock_order); > ^^^^^^^ > MAX_ORDER D'oh! I'll send a revised patch. >> + } while (subpage += MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES, --count); >> + } else { >> + __free_pages(page, pageblock_order); >> + } >> adjust_managed_page_count(page, pageblock_nr_pages); >> } >> #endif >> --------- >8 --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thoughts? This has not been tested and I think it may cause performance >> degradation in some cases since pageblock_order is not always >> a constant, so the comparison may end up not being stripped away even on >> systems where it's always false. > This works with the above tweak. So it fixes the problm here, but I was > not sure if we'd get bitten elsewhere by pageblock_order > MAX_ORDER. This is always a possibility, but in such cases, it's a bug in CMA. I've tried to keep in mind that pageblock_order may be greater than MAX_ORDER when writing CMA, but I've never tested on such a system. > It will be slower, but does it only gets called a few time at most at > boot time, right? Yes. The performance degradation should be negligible since init_cma_reserved is hardly a critical path and is called at most MAX_CMA_AREAS times which by default is 8. And I mean it will be slower because it will have to perform a branch. -- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Micha? ?mina86? Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +------ooO--(_)--Ooo--