From patchwork Mon Nov 15 19:37:21 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Zi Yan X-Patchwork-Id: 1555500 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: bilbo.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=sent.com header.i=@sent.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=Ed1fz5Ur; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=A4kmEJ1u; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org (client-ip=2404:9400:2:0:216:3eff:fee1:b9f1; helo=lists.ozlabs.org; envelope-from=linuxppc-dev-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org; receiver=) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2404:9400:2:0:216:3eff:fee1:b9f1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HtKSX2fRXz9sR4 for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 06:46:19 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HtKSW5Dzdz2yJR for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 06:46:19 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=sent.com header.i=@sent.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=Ed1fz5Ur; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=A4kmEJ1u; dkim-atps=neutral X-Original-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=sent.com (client-ip=66.111.4.229; helo=new3-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=zi.yan@sent.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=sent.com header.i=@sent.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=Ed1fz5Ur; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=A4kmEJ1u; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com (new3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HtKSB1PGfz2yHX for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 06:46:01 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E184A5805B1; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:37:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sent.com; h=from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; s=fm2; bh=orTWr/BdFPg59h4hngLif2VhgL B0bl+rFHZpRRyIkS0=; b=Ed1fz5UrkY2HQYKDvFsL0C7TFBad1qpGnzrhTYEF98 KYuyT3C6YrqBfrBYHy5ug+pBvAyxQ9UGWT2ebj7Q05NFslhNaL7PQda+4qZi8H4j UmX2z3ghjiwLir/83wjyS5DiCKwP1f0PVZsqJ5vC97JLFBZGIC9tgqeyvT8nbAoG j15IXPObAN8p5piwWNUyljS9qw1IbngUmC5K5eC9j223Q0beaRbwr7U/UnjbjDj9 T+UoBHPE2Iyd5z++uBPQ2sVHoVFSnMfTfD5G5LUyv0oLN2Qv1oBvNxOJFHP/vJWh ZREZtNLZ+aeqDWNSZ325NYGpEDahpCeefqEXz3idyzKw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:date:from :message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=orTWr/ BdFPg59h4hngLif2VhgLB0bl+rFHZpRRyIkS0=; b=A4kmEJ1ugobNUsOlhtU9Ik Vb7h5/Y2ujIFuSMek1uU+5yqMBc4Zk8fQgiFUYIrt1EeSXvzeTWMqOZMgwFbg1jX H6CFQswsi6GNSyIfemmH4VETAewa4eEpVybaxyQ5Wkeg+Wi5Es0i9W73AqcEbetT YncaPU0a3cxLloc4ujX4Xf/vBA1j51tonN1oD+5b0bdDrIoRi1MhmZ0ELSBuM11G w4hcEHpAFl5VRHqnSGTA9Mr5R3bLIl8qnelTsIrcnpHryU7BOKQG6DoOR94mOdkH zh++T/Fm0ls+BQmlMwPCffSNO3tQmODoFvG9tE6yVnf1U8X/HepwE8u6EipnVZhw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrfedtgddutddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfforhgggfestdhqredtredttdenucfhrhhomhepkghiucgjrghn uceoiihirdihrghnsehsvghnthdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepteeiiedtje fghfefueekjedvueeftddvudelhfetudffiefgfeetheeghfdvgedunecuffhomhgrihhn pehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpeiiihdrhigrnhesshgvnhhtrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:37:47 -0500 (EST) From: Zi Yan To: David Hildenbrand , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Use pageblock_order for cma and alloc_contig_range alignment. Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:37:21 -0500 Message-Id: <20211115193725.737539-1-zi.yan@sent.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.33.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Zi Yan Cc: Robin Murphy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Zi Yan , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christoph Hellwig , Marek Szyprowski Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" From: Zi Yan Hi David, You suggested to make alloc_contig_range() deal with pageblock_order instead of MAX_ORDER - 1 and get rid of MAX_ORDER - 1 dependency in virtio_mem[1]. This patchset is my attempt to achieve that. Please take a look and let me know if I am doing it correctly or not. From what my understanding, cma required alignment of max(MAX_ORDER - 1, pageblock_order), because when MIGRATE_CMA was introduced, __free_one_page() does not prevent merging two different pageblocks, when MAX_ORDER - 1 > pageblock_order. But current __free_one_page() implementation does prevent that. It should be OK to just align cma to pageblock_order. alloc_contig_range() relies on MIGRATE_CMA to get free pages, so it can use pageblock_order as alignment too. In terms of virtio_mem, if I understand correctly, it relies on alloc_contig_range() to obtain contiguous free pages and offlines them to reduce guest memory size. As the result of alloc_contig_range() alignment change, virtio_mem should be able to just align PFNs to pageblock_order. Thanks. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/28b57903-fae6-47ac-7e1b-a1dd41421349@redhat.com/ Zi Yan (3): mm: cma: alloc_contig_range: use pageblock_order as the single alignment. drivers: virtio_mem: use pageblock size as the minimum virtio_mem size. arch: powerpc: adjust fadump alignment to be pageblock aligned. arch/powerpc/include/asm/fadump-internal.h | 4 +--- drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c | 6 ++---- include/linux/mmzone.h | 5 +---- kernel/dma/contiguous.c | 2 +- mm/cma.c | 6 ++---- mm/page_alloc.c | 12 +++++------- 6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)