Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:33:38 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.29 pat issue |
| |
* Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com> wrote:
> Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 01:22 -0700, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> >>> Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:44:07PM -0800, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> We get the warning when we insert RAM pages using vm_insert_pfn(). >>>>> Having normal RAM pages backing a PFN papping is a valid thing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> OK. Below is the updated patch that should fix this fully. Can you confirm? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Venki >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, this patch should fix the problem. I'm still concerned about the >>> overhead of going through the >>> RAM test for each inserted page. >>> >>> Why can't a pfn_valid() test be used in vm_insert_pfn()? >>> >>> >> >> Because we may have to track the RAM pages as well in future. We are >> changing the e820 RAM check and making it use pfn_valid. But, for that >> we have to change more things in tracking of RAM pages. Today we use one >> bit in page struct without any refcounting. But, more changes there are >> on ts way. This change here should keep the current kernel fine without >> any regression. >> >> Thanks, >> Venki >> >> > Ok, I understand. > and yes, the regression should be fixed with the patch.
Good. Venki, mind resending the patch against tip:master, with a proper subject line, changelog and Acked-by in place? Thanks,
Ingo
| |