Messages in this thread | | | From | Johannes Weiner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm 11/14] bootmem: respect goal more likely | Date | Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:13:47 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:
> Hi. > >> > I'd like to straggle more, but may be need more time, >> > because, IA64 doesn't have early_printk, and console is not enable >> > at here..... >> >> Hm, just to make sure: this is the patch that breaks booting, right? If >> you apply all patches in the series before this one, the machine boots >> fine? > > Yes.
Okay.
>> >> Could you boot a working image with bootmem_debug in the command line? >> Perhaps seeing the usual bootmem usage on this box gives a hint what is >> broken. > > Ok. I'll try it.
Thanks!
>> > However, new_start and new_end should be named as new_start_offset and >> > new_end_offset. They are not index, but offset from start address of >> > the node. >> >> Yes, that too. I would also rename last_offset to last_eidx and >> last_success to last_sidx. What do you think? > > Last_sidx is ok. But, last_offset seems to be used to manage some > allocated smaller chunks than one page. I'm not sure last_eidx is ok.
Sorry, my fault.
How about last_offset -> last_end_off to reflect that it is the offset of the last allocations end?
And last_succes -> hint_idx to reflect that it is an index we start searching from but it is not strict and we fall back if we find nothing starting from there. Also free_bootmem* sets it as a hint from where we could start searching.
I also would set last_success/hint_idx to the _end_ of the successful allocation (instead of the beginning of it) in alloc_bootmem_core because we do not want to search for a new free block from the beginning of the last allocation but rather right after it.
What do you think?
Hannes
| |