Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Johannes Weiner <> | Subject | Re: + bootmem-node-setup-agnostic-free_bootmem.patch added to -mm tree | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:51:25 +0200 |
| |
Hi Ingo,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> * akpm@linux-foundation.org <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> Subject: bootmem: node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> >> >> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address >> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node >> configurations. > > this patch does not fix the bug Yinghai's (now dropped) patches solved: > reserve_early() allocations. So NAK until the full problem has been > sorted out ...
Okay, NAK on -mm and -x86 for sure. The patch was meant for mainline where there is no need for free_bootmem() going across nodes, right?
But I still object to the way Yinghai implemented it. free_bootmem_core() should not be twisted like this.
How about the following (untested, even uncompiled, but you should get the idea) proposal which would replace the patch discussed in this thread:
--- tree-linus.orig/mm/bootmem.c +++ tree-linus/mm/bootmem.c @@ -421,7 +421,25 @@ int __init reserve_bootmem(unsigned long void __init free_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size) { - free_bootmem_core(NODE_DATA(0)->bdata, addr, size); + bootmem_data_t *bdata; + + list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) { + unsigned long remainder = 0; + + if (addr < bdata->node_boot_start) + continue; + + if (PFN_DOWN(addr + size) > bdata->node_low_pfn) + remainder = PFN_DOWN(addr + size) - bdata->node_low_pfn; + + size -= PFN_PHYS(remainder); + free_bootmem_core(bdata, addr, size) + + if (!remainder) + break; + + addr = PFN_PHYS(bdata->node_low_pfn + 1); + } } unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem(void) --- Hannes
| |