Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 01:22 -0700, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> 
>> Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:44:07PM -0800, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> We get the warning when we insert RAM pages using vm_insert_pfn().
>>>> Having normal RAM pages backing a PFN papping is a valid thing.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> OK. Below is the updated patch that should fix this fully. Can you confirm?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Venki
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>> Yes, this patch should fix the problem. I'm still concerned about the 
>> overhead of going through the
>> RAM test for each inserted page.
>>
>> Why can't a pfn_valid() test be used in vm_insert_pfn()?
>>
>> 
>
> Because we may have to track the RAM pages as well in future. We are
> changing the e820 RAM check and making it use pfn_valid. But, for that
> we have to change more things in tracking of RAM pages. Today we use one
> bit in page struct without any refcounting. But, more changes there are
> on ts way. This change here should keep the current kernel fine without
> any regression.
>
> Thanks,
> Venki
>
> 
Ok, I understand.
and yes, the regression should be fixed with the patch.

Thanks,
Thomas