[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
    Hi, Dave. 

    On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:35:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
    > 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. :)

    No problem. :)

    > Make the sections 16MB. You suggestion to add the start/end pfns

    I hope so.

    > _doubles_ the size of the structure, and its size overhead. We have
    > systems with a pretty tremendous amount of memory with 16MB sections.

    Yes. it does in several GB server system.

    > 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.

    Thanks for advise. As I say, I hope Russell accept 16M section.

    > -- Dave

    Kind regards,
    Minchan Kim

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-13 18:47    [W:0.027 / U:1.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site