Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:41:51 +0800 | From | Zhang Yanfei <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] memblock: Improve memblock to support allocation from lower address. |
| |
Hello tejun,
On 09/24/2013 04:21 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:07:13AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: >> Yes, I am following your advice in principle but kind of confused by >> something you said above. Where should the set_memblock_alloc_above_kernel >> be used? IMO, the function is like: >> >> find_in_range_node() >> { >> if (ok) { >> /* bottom-up */ >> ret = __memblock_find_in_range(max(start, _end_of_kernel), end...); >> if (!ret) >> return ret; >> } >> >> /* top-down retry */ >> return __memblock_find_in_range_rev(start, end...) >> } >> >> For bottom-up allocation, we always start from max(start, _end_of_kernel). > > Oh, I was talking about naming of the memblock_set_bottom_up() > function. We aren't really doing pure bottom up allocations, so I > think it probably would be clearer if the name clearly denotes that > we're doing above-kernel allocation.
I see. But I think memblock_set_alloc_above_kernel may lose the info that we are doing bottom-up allocation. So my idea is we introduce pure bottom-up allocation mode in previous patches and we use the bottom-up allocation here and limit the start address above the kernel , with explicit comments to indicate this.
How do you think?
Thanks.
> > Thanks. >
-- Thanks. Zhang Yanfei
| |