Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kernel/fork.c: get totalram_pages from memblock to calculate max_threads

[David Hildenbrand]

On 02.07.24 06:26, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon,  1 Jul 2024 01:34:09 +0000 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Since we plan to move the accounting into __free_pages_core(),
> > totalram_pages may not represent the total usable pages on system
> > at this point when defer_init is enabled.
>
> Yes, things like totalram_pages() are very old, and were a good idea at the
> time, but things moved on.
>
> > Instead we can get the total usable pages from memblock directly.
> >
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> >   #include <linux/fs.h>
> >   #include <linux/mm.h>
> >   #include <linux/mm_inline.h>
> > +#include <linux/memblock.h>
> >   #include <linux/nsproxy.h>
> >   #include <linux/capability.h>
> >   #include <linux/cpu.h>
> > @@ -999,7 +1000,7 @@ void __init __weak arch_task_cache_init(void) { }
> >   static void set_max_threads(unsigned int max_threads_suggested)
> >   {
> >   	u64 threads;
> > -	unsigned long nr_pages = totalram_pages();
> > +	unsigned long nr_pages = PHYS_PFN(memblock_phys_mem_size() - memblock_reserved_size());
>
> The result of this subtraction has meaning.  Even if it is only used
> once, I suspect it should be in a standalone function which has
> documentation which describes that meaning.  Having fork.c make an
> open-coded poke into memblock internals seems wrong, no?

I was just about the comment the same thing:

I'm starting to wonder if we should have a helper like

memblock_estimated_nr_pages()

or sth like that that abstracts this?

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb