[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 00:43 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> 3 is not a big deal than 2 about memory usage.
> If the system use memory space fully(MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS 31), it just consumes
> 1024(128 * 8) byte. So now I think best solution is 2.
> Russell. What do you think about it?

I'm not Russell, but I'll tell you what I think. :)

Make the sections 16MB. You suggestion to add the start/end pfns
_doubles_ the size of the structure, and its size overhead. We have
systems with a pretty tremendous amount of memory with 16MB sections.

If you _really_ can't make the section size smaller, and the vast
majority of the sections are fully populated, you could hack something
in. We could, for instance, have a global list that's mostly readonly
which tells you which sections need to be have their sizes closely
inspected. That would work OK if, for instance, you only needed to
check a couple of memory sections in the system. It'll start to suck if
you made the lists very long.

-- Dave

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-13 18:37    [W:0.034 / U:4.648 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site