Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:57:04 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() |
| |
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: > Hi, > > > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: > >> > >> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes: > >> > >> > Andrew Morton wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address > >> >>>> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node > >> >>>> configurations. > >> >>> Acked-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> > >> >>> > >> >>> This is far better than the original change it replaces and which > >> >>> I also objected to in review. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for > >> >> 2.6.25? > >> > > >> > It's only strictly needed for .26 I think for some (also slightly > >> > dubious) changes queued in git-x86. > >> > >> Does anything yet rely on this new free_bootmem() behaviour? If not, > >> the safest thing would be to just revert the original patch in mainline > >> and drop the second patch completely. > > > > 1. free_bootmem(ramdisk_image, ramdisk_size) in setup_arch of x86_64 > > need that > > 2. another patch in x86.git need that. > > Ok, to avoid confusion: we are talking about free_bootmem() iterating > over nodes and looking up an area WITHIN a node or free_bootmem() > freeing an area ACROSS nodes? > > The first is what my patch does _only_.
Yes, your patch for free_bootmem only can free blocks in the same node.
but the free_bootmem(ramdisk_image,...) in setup_arch could cross node... , and some other via reserve_early...
for example two nodes, every node have 2G, and in case use memmap=NN$SS to execlude some memory on node1. the ramdisk could sit cross the boundary.
YH
| |