Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:51:40 +0900 | From | Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] no buddy bitmap patch : intro and includes [0/2] |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>>>What was the purpose behind this, again? Sorry, has been too long since >>>>I last looked.
>>On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 08:03, Tolentino, Matthew E wrote: >> >>For one, it avoids the otherwise requisite resizing of the bitmaps=20 >>during memory hotplug operations... >>
>> Dave McCracken wrote: >> The memory allocator bitmaps are the main remaining reason we need the >> concept of linear memory. If we can get rid of them, it's one step closer >> to managing memory as a set of sections.
>>--Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote (on Thursday, October 07, 2004 08:39:38 -0700) >>It also simplifies the nonlinear implementation. The whole reason we >>had the lpfn (Linear) stuff was so that the bitmaps could represent a >>sparse physical address space in a much more linear fashion. With no >>bitmaps, this isn't an issue, and gets rid of a lot of code, and a >>*huge* source of bugs where lpfns and pfns are confused for each other. > > > Makese sense on both counts. Would be nice to add the justification to > the changelog ;-) >
It seems all I should answer is already answered. Thank you all.
I'll add the purpose to the changelog.
Kame <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> M. >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |