On 18.07.2022 12:08, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 10:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.07.2022 19:03, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -1778,16 +1778,44 @@ int query_page_offline(mfn_t mfn, uint32_t *status)
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * Hand the specified arbitrary page range to the specified heap zone
>>> - * checking the node_id of the previous page. If they differ and the
>>> - * latter is not on a MAX_ORDER boundary, then we reserve the page by
>>> - * not freeing it to the buddy allocator.
>>> + * This function should only be called with valid pages from the same NUMA
>>> + * node.
>>> */
>>> +static void _init_heap_pages(const struct page_info *pg,
>>> + unsigned long nr_pages,
>>> + bool need_scrub)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long s, e;
>>> + unsigned int nid = phys_to_nid(page_to_maddr(pg));
>>> +
>>> + s = mfn_x(page_to_mfn(pg));
>>> + e = mfn_x(mfn_add(page_to_mfn(pg + nr_pages - 1), 1));
>>> + if ( unlikely(!avail[nid]) )
>>> + {
>>> + bool use_tail = IS_ALIGNED(s, 1UL << MAX_ORDER) &&
>>> + (find_first_set_bit(e) <= find_first_set_bit(s));
>>> + unsigned long n;
>>> +
>>> + n = init_node_heap(nid, s, nr_pages, &use_tail);
>>> + BUG_ON(n > nr_pages);
>>> + if ( use_tail )
>>> + e -= n;
>>> + else
>>> + s += n;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + while ( s < e )
>>> + {
>>> + free_heap_pages(mfn_to_page(_mfn(s)), 0, need_scrub);
>>> + s += 1UL;
>>
>> ... the more conventional s++ or ++s used here?
>
> I would prefer to keep using "s += 1UL" here because:
> * it will be replace with a proper order in the follow-up patch. So
> this is temporary.
Fair enough.
Jan
> * one could argue that if I use "s++" then I should also switch to a
> for loop which would make sense here but not in the next patch.
>
> Cheers,
>
