Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2019-06-12 Thread Hanjun Guo
On 2019/6/12 9:05, Jia He wrote: >> >>> So what I would like to see is the patch set being proposed again, >>> with the new data points added for documentation. Also, the commit >>> logs need to crystal clear about how the meaning of PFN validity >>> differs between ARM and other architectures, and

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2019-06-11 Thread Jia He
Hi Hanjun On 2019/6/11 23:18, Hanjun Guo wrote: Hello Ard, Thanks for the reply, please see my comments inline. On 2019/6/10 21:16, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 06:22, Hanjun Guo wrote: Hi Ard, Will, This week we were trying to debug an issue of time consuming in mem_init(),

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2019-06-11 Thread Hanjun Guo
Hello Ard, Thanks for the reply, please see my comments inline. On 2019/6/10 21:16, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 06:22, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> >> Hi Ard, Will, >> >> This week we were trying to debug an issue of time consuming in mem_init(), >> and leading to this similar solution

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2019-06-10 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 06:22, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > Hi Ard, Will, > > This week we were trying to debug an issue of time consuming in mem_init(), > and leading to this similar solution form Jia He, so I would like to bring > this > thread back, please see my detail test result below. > > On 2018/9

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2019-06-07 Thread Hanjun Guo
Hi Ard, Will, This week we were trying to debug an issue of time consuming in mem_init(), and leading to this similar solution form Jia He, so I would like to bring this thread back, please see my detail test result below. On 2018/9/7 22:44, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:24:22PM

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2018-09-07 Thread Will Deacon
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:24:22PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 22 August 2018 at 05:07, Jia He 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 Vac

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2018-09-06 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 22 August 2018 at 05:07, Jia He 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 t

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2018-09-06 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 02:57:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:07:14 +0800 Jia He 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 D

Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2018-09-05 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:07:14 +0800 Jia He 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

[PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64

2018-08-21 Thread Jia He
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