Messages in this thread | | | From | Johannes Weiner <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:05:44 +0200 |
| |
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
| |