[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:0.102 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site