lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
    On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    >
    > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:
    >
    > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:
    > >>
    > >> > Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >> >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>>> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address
    > >> >>>> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node
    > >> >>>> configurations.
    > >> >>> Acked-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> This is far better than the original change it replaces and which
    > >> >>> I also objected to in review.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for
    > >> >> 2.6.25?
    > >> >
    > >> > It's only strictly needed for .26 I think for some (also slightly
    > >> > dubious) changes queued in git-x86.
    > >>
    > >> Does anything yet rely on this new free_bootmem() behaviour? If not,
    > >> the safest thing would be to just revert the original patch in mainline
    > >> and drop the second patch completely.
    > >
    > > 1. free_bootmem(ramdisk_image, ramdisk_size) in setup_arch of x86_64
    > > need that
    > > 2. another patch in x86.git need that.
    >
    > Ok, to avoid confusion: we are talking about free_bootmem() iterating
    > over nodes and looking up an area WITHIN a node or free_bootmem()
    > freeing an area ACROSS nodes?
    >
    > The first is what my patch does _only_.

    Yes, your patch for free_bootmem only can free blocks in the same node.

    but the free_bootmem(ramdisk_image,...) in setup_arch could cross
    node... , and some other via reserve_early...

    for example two nodes, every node have 2G, and in case use
    memmap=NN$SS to execlude some memory on node1. the ramdisk could sit
    cross the boundary.

    YH


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-15 21:59    [W:0.045 / U:61.288 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site