Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] kexec: separate PageHighMem() and PageHighMemZone() use case

[Joonsoo Kim]

2020ë 5ì 1ì (ê) ìí 11:06, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>ëì ìì:
>
> js1304@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Until now, PageHighMem() is used for two different cases. One is to check
> > if there is a direct mapping for this page or not. The other is to check
> > the zone of this page, that is, weather it is the highmem type zone or not.
> >
> > Now, we have separate functions, PageHighMem() and PageHighMemZone() for
> > each cases. Use appropriate one.
> >
> > Note that there are some rules to determine the proper macro.
> >
> > 1. If PageHighMem() is called for checking if the direct mapping exists
> > or not, use PageHighMem().
> > 2. If PageHighMem() is used to predict the previous gfp_flags for
> > this page, use PageHighMemZone(). The zone of the page is related to
> > the gfp_flags.
> > 3. If purpose of calling PageHighMem() is to count highmem page and
> > to interact with the system by using this count, use PageHighMemZone().
> > This counter is usually used to calculate the available memory for an
> > kernel allocation and pages on the highmem zone cannot be available
> > for an kernel allocation.
> > 4. Otherwise, use PageHighMemZone(). It's safe since it's implementation
> > is just copy of the previous PageHighMem() implementation and won't
> > be changed.
> >
> > I apply the rule #2 for this patch.
>
> Hmm.
>
> What happened to the notion of deprecating and reducing the usage of
> highmem?  I know that we have some embedded architectures where it is
> still important but this feels like it flies in the face of that.

AFAIK, deprecating highmem requires some more time and, before then,
we need to support it.

>
> This part of kexec would be much more maintainable if it had a proper
> mm layer helper that tested to see if the page matched the passed in
> gfp flags.  That way the mm layer could keep changing and doing weird
> gyrations and this code would not care.

Good idea! I will do it.

>
> What would be really helpful is if there was a straight forward way to
> allocate memory whose physical address fits in the native word size.
>
>
> All I know for certain about this patch is that it takes a piece of code
> that looked like it made sense, and transfroms it into something I can
> not easily verify, and can not maintain.

Although I decide to make a helper as you described above, I don't
understand why you think that a new code isn't maintainable. It is just
the same thing with different name. Could you elaborate more why do
you think so?

Thanks.