Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:20:19 +0800 | From | Jaegeuk Hanse <> | Subject | Re: [RFT PATCH v1 0/5] fix up inaccurate zone->present_pages |
| |
On 11/20/2012 10:43 AM, Jiang Liu wrote: > On 2012-11-20 10:13, Jaegeuk Hanse wrote: >> On 11/19/2012 12:07 AM, Jiang Liu wrote: >>> The commit 7f1290f2f2a4 ("mm: fix-up zone present pages") tries to >>> resolve an issue caused by inaccurate zone->present_pages, but that >>> fix is incomplete and causes regresions with HIGHMEM. And it has been >>> reverted by commit >>> 5576646 revert "mm: fix-up zone present pages" >>> >>> This is a following-up patchset for the issue above. It introduces a >>> new field named "managed_pages" to struct zone, which counts pages >>> managed by the buddy system from the zone. And zone->present_pages >>> is used to count pages existing in the zone, which is >>> spanned_pages - absent_pages. >>> >>> But that way, zone->present_pages will be kept in consistence with >>> pgdat->node_present_pages, which is sum of zone->present_pages. >>> >>> This patchset has only been tested on x86_64 with nobootmem.c. So need >>> help to test this patchset on machines: >>> 1) use bootmem.c >> If only x86_32 use bootmem.c instead of nobootmem.c? How could I confirm it? > Hi Jaegeuk, > Thanks for review this patch set. > Currently x86/x86_64/Sparc have been converted to use nobootmem.c, > and other Arches still use bootmem.c. So need to test it on other Arches, > such as ARM etc. Yesterday we have tested it patchset on an Itanium platform, > so bootmem.c should work as expected too.
Hi Jiang,
If there are any codes changed in x86/x86_64 to meet nobootmem.c logic? I mean if remove config NO_BOOTMEM def_bool y in arch/x86/Kconfig, whether x86/x86_64 can take advantage of bootmem.c or not.
Regards, Jaegeuk
> Thanks! > Gerry > >
| |