Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:28:34 -0700 | | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() | |
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:03 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Morton
> > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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?
> >
> > the patch is wrong
> >
>
> The last I saw was this:
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:57:22 +0200 Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > >
> > > could have chance that bootmem with reserved_early that is crossing
> > > the nodes.
> >
> > Upstream reserve_bootmem_core() would BUG() on a caller trying to cross
> > nodes, so I don't see where this chance could come from.
>
> Is that what you're referring to?
>
> Was Johannes observation incorrect? If so, why?
my patch with free_bootmem will make sure free_bootmem_core only free
bootmem in the bdata scope.
so free_bootmem can handle the cross_node bootmem that is done by
reserve_early ( done in another patch, is dropped by you because took
Jonannes).
in setup_arch for x86_64 there is one free_bootmem that is used when
ramdisk is falled out of ram map. that could be crossed by bootloader
and kexec, and kernel or second kernel is memmap=NN@SS to execlue some
memory.
anyway that is extrem case, but my patch could handle that.
I wonder if any regression caused by my previous patch? maybe on other platform?
YH
|  |