[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] [RFC] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V2
    On Thursday 13 April 2006 02:22, Mel Gorman wrote:

    > I experimented with the idea of all architectures sharing the struct
    > node_active_region rather than storing the information twice. It got very
    > messy, particularly for x86 because it needs to store more than nid,
    > start_pfn and end_pfn for a range of page frames (see node_memory_chunk_s
    > in arch/i386/kernel/srat.c). Worse, some architecture-specific code
    > remembers the ranges of active memory as addresses and others as pfn's. In
    > the end, I was not too worried about having the information in two places,
    > because the active ranges are kept in __initdata and gets freed.

    The problem is not memory consumption but complexity of code/data structures.
    Keeping information in two places is usually a good cue that something
    is wrong. This code is also fragile and hard to test.

    > I'll admit that for x86_64, the entire code path for initialisation (i.e.
    > architecture specific and architecture independent paths) is now more
    > complex. The architecture independent code needed to be able to handle
    > every variety of node layout which is overkill for x86_64. Nevertheless,
    > without size_zones(), I thought the architecture-specific code for x86_64
    > memory initialisation was a bit easier to read. With
    > architecture-independent zone size and hole calculation, you only have to
    > understand the relevant code once, not once for each architecture.

    I think i386 SRAT NUMA should be just removed at some point - it never
    worked all that well and is quite complicated. That leaves IA64, x86-64
    and ppc64. I suspect keeping the code there near their low level
    data structures is better.

    > > I have my doubts that is really a improvement over the old state.
    > >
    > For x86_64 in isolation or the entire set of patches?

    For x86-64/i386. I haven't read the other architectures.

    > > I think it would be better if you just defined some simple "library functions"
    > > that can be called from the architecture specific code instead of adding
    > > all this new high level code.
    > >
    > What sort of library functions would you recommend? x86_64 uses
    > add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes() from this patchset which
    > seemed fairly straight-forward.

    e.g. a generic size_zones(). Possibly some others.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-13 03:01    [W:0.026 / U:0.896 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site