lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:40:33 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>> @@ -987,6 +988,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> set_highmem_pages_init();
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> + after_bootmem = 1;
>> >>>>>> this hack can go away once we have a proper percpu_alloc() that can be
>> >>>>>> used early enough.
>> >>>>> where is that fancy patch? current percpu_alloc(), will keep big
>> >>>>> pointer in array..., instead of put that pointer in percpu_area
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 64bit has that after_bootmem already.
>> >>>> or at least introduce a "bootmem agnostic" allocator instead of
>> >>>> open-coding the after_bootmem flag.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Something like:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> early_kzalloc()
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Andrew, any preferences?
>> >>> My mind reading ain't what it was, and this after_bootmem flag is
>> >>> write-only in this patch.
>> >>>
>> >>> So what's all this about?
>> >> if i use alloc_bootmem to get some memory, and later after_bootmem,
>> >> can I use kfree to free it?
>> >
>> > hm, no. If we used alloc_bootmem(), then we must not free it after
>> > after_bootmem has been set.
>>
>> ok, let keep irq_desc for legacy irqs not movable...
>
> most of them are movable right now, correct? If we restrict their
> movability now that might surprise existing usecases negatively.

i mean irq_desc will not be allocated one one on new cpus...

YH


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-10 20:49    [W:1.306 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site