![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-15 09:31 [W:1.041 / U:0.480 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||