lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
Date
Hi,

"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

Yep.

> 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.

Now it gets clear. Alright, then my patches should be dropped and I'll
whip something up for the 2.6.26 merge window.

Hannes


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-15 22:09    [W:0.048 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site