search for: __get_free_pages

...@@ -180,8 +180,9 @@ int vmbus_open(struct vmbus_channel *newchannel, u32 send_ringbuffer_size, newchannel->channel_callback_context = context; /* Allocate the ring buffer */ - out = osd_page_alloc((send_ringbuffer_size + recv_ringbuffer_size) - >> PAGE_SHIFT); + out = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO, + get_order(send_ringbuffer_size + recv_ringbuffer_size)); + if (!out) return -ENOMEM; @@ -300,8 +301,8 @@ Cleanup: errorout: ringbuffer_cleanup(&newchannel->outbound); ringbuffer_cleanup(&newchannel->inbound); - osd_page_free(out, (send_ringbuffer_...

...@@ -180,8 +180,9 @@ int vmbus_open(struct vmbus_channel *newchannel, u32 send_ringbuffer_size, newchannel->channel_callback_context = context; /* Allocate the ring buffer */ - out = osd_page_alloc((send_ringbuffer_size + recv_ringbuffer_size) - >> PAGE_SHIFT); + out = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO, + get_order(send_ringbuffer_size + recv_ringbuffer_size)); + if (!out) return -ENOMEM; @@ -300,8 +301,8 @@ Cleanup: errorout: ringbuffer_cleanup(&newchannel->outbound); ringbuffer_cleanup(&newchannel->inbound); - osd_page_free(out, (send_ringbuffer_...

...etbk structures. Main Changes from v2: 1. Merge "group" and "idx" into "netif->mapping", therefore page_ext is not used now. 2. Put netbk_add_netif() and netbk_remove_netif() into __netif_up() and __netif_down(). 3. Change the usage of kthread_should_stop(). 4. Use __get_free_pages() to replace kzalloc(). 5. Modify the changes to netif_be_dbg(). 6. Use MODPARM_netback_kthread to determine whether using tasklet or kernel thread. 7. Put small fields in the front, and large arrays in the end of struct xen_netbk. 8. Add more checks in netif_page_release(). Current netback uses o...

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 08:13:37PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > On 06/19/2018 11:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 01:06:48AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote: > > > On Monday, June 18, 2018 10:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 01:09:44AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote: > > > > > Not necessarily, I think. We have

...<c015e2ea>] move_freepages_block+0x6a/0x80 [<c015e5d9>] __rmqueue+0x1a9/0x1e0 [<c015e651>] rmqueue_bulk+0x41/0x70 [<c015eae4>] get_page_from_freelist+0x464/0x490 [<c015ebba>] __alloc_pages_internal+0xaa/0x460 [<c015ef8f>] __alloc_pages+0xf/0x20 [<c015f4bf>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x20 [<c01c015f>] proc_file_read+0x8f/0x2a0 [<c01c00d0>] proc_file_read+0x0/0x2a0 [<c01bb7ca>] proc_reg_read+0x5a/0x90 [<c01801f1>] vfs_read+0xa1/0x160 [<c01bb770>] proc_reg_read+0x0/0x90 [<c0180551>] sys_read+0x41/0x70 [<c0107256>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb...

...<c015e2ea>] move_freepages_block+0x6a/0x80 [<c015e5d9>] __rmqueue+0x1a9/0x1e0 [<c015e651>] rmqueue_bulk+0x41/0x70 [<c015eae4>] get_page_from_freelist+0x464/0x490 [<c015ebba>] __alloc_pages_internal+0xaa/0x460 [<c015ef8f>] __alloc_pages+0xf/0x20 [<c015f4bf>] __get_free_pages+0xf/0x20 [<c01c015f>] proc_file_read+0x8f/0x2a0 [<c01c00d0>] proc_file_read+0x0/0x2a0 [<c01bb7ca>] proc_reg_read+0x5a/0x90 [<c01801f1>] vfs_read+0xa1/0x160 [<c01bb770>] proc_reg_read+0x0/0x90 [<c0180551>] sys_read+0x41/0x70 [<c0107256>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb...

...i try to install the modules form 1.6.2/sles10-i686 it says : sles2:/usr/src/lustre # rpm -i lustre-modules-1.6.2-2.6.16_46_0.14_lustre.1.6.2bigsmp.i686.rpm error: Failed dependencies: ksym(panic) = 1075bf0 is needed by lustre-modules-1.6.2-2.6.16_46_0.14_lustre.1.6.2bigsmp.i686 ksym(__get_free_pages) = 107d6ba3 is needed by lustre-modules-1.6.2-2.6.16_46_0.14_lustre.1.6.2bigsmp.i686 ksym(malloc_sizes) = 1095f2e0 is needed by lustre-modules-1.6.2-2.6.16_46_0.14_lustre.1.6.2bigsmp.i686 ksym(proc_symlink) = 1109102e is needed by lustre-modules-1.6.2-2.6.16_46_0.14_lustre.1.6.2bigsmp...

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:20:35PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > +static void *dma_noop_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size, > + dma_addr_t *dma_handle, gfp_t gfp, > + struct dma_attrs *attrs) > +{ > + void *ret; > + > + ret = (void *)__get_free_pages(gfp, get_order(size)); > + if (ret) { > + memset(ret, 0, size); There is no need to zero out the memory here. If the user wants initialized memory it can call dma_zalloc_coherent. Having the memset here means to clear the memory twice in the dma_zalloc_coherent path. Otherwise it looks goo...

...method always steal the first free page blocks, and sure can > > > > be changed to take more. But all these can be achieved via kmalloc > > > I'd do get_user_pages really. You don't want pages split, etc. > > Oops sorry. I meant get_free_pages . Yes, we can use __get_free_pages, and the max allocation is MAX_ORDER - 1, which can report up to 2TB free memory. "getting two pages isn't harder", do you mean passing two arrays (two allocations by get_free_pages(,MAX_ORDER -1)) to the mm API? Please see if the following logic aligns to what you think:...

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:20:35PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > +static void *dma_noop_alloc(struct device *dev, size_t size, > + dma_addr_t *dma_handle, gfp_t gfp, > + struct dma_attrs *attrs) > +{ > + void *ret; > + > + ret = (void *)__get_free_pages(gfp, get_order(size)); > + if (ret) { > + memset(ret, 0, size); There is no need to zero out the memory here. If the user wants initialized memory it can call dma_zalloc_coherent. Having the memset here means to clear the memory twice in the dma_zalloc_coherent path. Otherwise it looks goo...

...; + max_array_num = max_entries / entries_per_array + >> + !!(max_entries % entries_per_array); >> + arrays = kmalloc_array(max_array_num, sizeof(__le64 *), GFP_KERNEL); > Instead of all this mess, how about get_free_pages here as well? Sounds good, will replace kmalloc_array with __get_free_pages(), but still need the above calculation to get max_array_num. > > Also why do we need GFP_KERNEL for this? I guess it is better to use "__GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC", thanks. > > >> + if (!arrays) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < m...

...(i = 0; i < max_array_num; i++) { So we are getting a ton of memory here just to free it up a bit later. Why doesn't get_from_free_page_list get the pages from free list for us? We could also avoid the 1st allocation then - just build a list of these. > + arrays[i] = > + (__le64 *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC, > + ARRAY_ALLOC_ORDER); Coding style says: Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and are placed substantially to the right. > + if (!arrays[i]) { Also if it does fail (small guest), shall we try with less arrays? > + /*...

...(i = 0; i < max_array_num; i++) { So we are getting a ton of memory here just to free it up a bit later. Why doesn't get_from_free_page_list get the pages from free list for us? We could also avoid the 1st allocation then - just build a list of these. > + arrays[i] = > + (__le64 *)__get_free_pages(__GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC, > + ARRAY_ALLOC_ORDER); Coding style says: Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and are placed substantially to the right. > + if (!arrays[i]) { Also if it does fail (small guest), shall we try with less arrays? > + /*...

...struct page *alloc_transhugepage(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > + unsigned long addr); > +#else > +static inline struct page *alloc_transhugepage(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > + unsigned long addr) > +{ > + return NULL; > +} > +#endif > > extern unsigned long __get_free_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order); > extern unsigned long get_zeroed_page(gfp_t gfp_mask); > diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c > index 25d95f7b1e98..f749633ed350 100644 > --- a/mm/huge_memory.c > +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c > @@ -775,6 +775,22 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pm...

...ries / entries_per_array + > > > + !!(max_entries % entries_per_array); > > > + arrays = kmalloc_array(max_array_num, sizeof(__le64 *), GFP_KERNEL); > > Instead of all this mess, how about get_free_pages here as well? > > Sounds good, will replace kmalloc_array with __get_free_pages(), Or alloc_pages, __ APIs are better avoided if possible. > but still > need the above calculation to get max_array_num. Maybe alloc_pages? > > > > Also why do we need GFP_KERNEL for this? > > I guess it is better to use "__GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC", th...

...ries / entries_per_array + > > > + !!(max_entries % entries_per_array); > > > + arrays = kmalloc_array(max_array_num, sizeof(__le64 *), GFP_KERNEL); > > Instead of all this mess, how about get_free_pages here as well? > > Sounds good, will replace kmalloc_array with __get_free_pages(), Or alloc_pages, __ APIs are better avoided if possible. > but still > need the above calculation to get max_array_num. Maybe alloc_pages? > > > > Also why do we need GFP_KERNEL for this? > > I guess it is better to use "__GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC", th...

..._buf(struct hv_device *device) "device being destroyed?"); return -1; } - /* ASSERT(netDevice->ReceiveBufferSize > 0); */ - /* page-size grandularity */ - /* ASSERT((netDevice->ReceiveBufferSize & (PAGE_SIZE - 1)) == 0); */ net_device->recv_buf = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO, @@ -234,9 +227,6 @@ static int netvsc_init_recv_buf(struct hv_device *device) ret = -1; goto cleanup; } - /* page-aligned buffer */ - /* ASSERT(((unsigned long)netDevice->ReceiveBuffer & (PAGE_SIZE - 1)) == */ - /* 0); */ DPRINT_INFO(NETVSC, "Establis...

..._buf(struct hv_device *device) "device being destroyed?"); return -1; } - /* ASSERT(netDevice->ReceiveBufferSize > 0); */ - /* page-size grandularity */ - /* ASSERT((netDevice->ReceiveBufferSize & (PAGE_SIZE - 1)) == 0); */ net_device->recv_buf = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO, @@ -234,9 +227,6 @@ static int netvsc_init_recv_buf(struct hv_device *device) ret = -1; goto cleanup; } - /* page-aligned buffer */ - /* ASSERT(((unsigned long)netDevice->ReceiveBuffer & (PAGE_SIZE - 1)) == */ - /* 0); */ DPRINT_INFO(NETVSC, "Establis...

...warn_alloc_failed+0xf3/0x140 [79030.229606] [<ffffffff810080df>] ? xen_restore_fl_direct_reloc+0x4/0x4 [79030.229616] [<ffffffff810e22b3>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x533/0x700 [79030.229625] [<ffffffff810080f2>] ? check_events+0x12/0x20 [79030.229635] [<ffffffff810e2547>] __get_free_pages+0x17/0x80 [79030.229645] [<ffffffff813f0af6>] xen_swiotlb_alloc_coherent+0x56/0x140 [79030.229656] [<ffffffff814ea68e>] ? usb_alloc_urb+0x1e/0x50 [79030.229666] [<ffffffff814f00f5>] hcd_buffer_alloc+0x95/0x150 [79030.229676] [<ffffffff814e1806>] usb_alloc_coherent+0x26/0...

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34430 Summary: nouveau driver does not return VGA connector status breaking upower Product: xorg Version: unspecified Platform: x86-64 (AMD64) OS/Version: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau