Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:39:56 +0900 | From | Kamezawa Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: 2.6.14-mm2 |
| |
Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 01:02 +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: > >>>Can you explain in a little bit more detail why this matters, and >>>exactly how it fixes your problem. I'm not sure it's correct. >>> >> >>Ah, okay. >> >>It's just because free_area[] is not initaialized at all if this is not called. >>It is list.next and list.prev has bad value. >>Then, the first free_page(page) will cause panic. > > > Hmmm. I _think_ you're just trying to do some things at runtime that I > didn't intend. In the patch I pointed to in the last mail, look at what > I did in hot_add_zone_init(). It does some of what > free_area_init_core() does, but only the most minimal bits. Basically: > > zone_wait_table_init(zone, size_pages); > init_currently_empty_zone(zone, phys_start_pfn, size_pages); > zone_pcp_init(zone); > > Your way may also be valid, but I broke out init_currently_empty_zone() > for a reason, and I think this was it. I don't think we want to be > calling free_area_init_core() itself at runtime. > Okay... I'll read what you done more carefully and find another approach. I guess what I need is that free_area[] is initialized before the first free_page[].
thanks, -- Kame
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |