lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:28:34 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:03 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Morton
> > > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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?
> > >
> > > the patch is wrong
> > >
> >
> > The last I saw was this:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:57:22 +0200 Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
> > > > ...
> >
> > > >
> > > > could have chance that bootmem with reserved_early that is crossing
> > > > the nodes.
> > >
> > > Upstream reserve_bootmem_core() would BUG() on a caller trying to cross
> > > nodes, so I don't see where this chance could come from.
> >
> > Is that what you're referring to?
> >
> > Was Johannes observation incorrect? If so, why?
>
> my patch with free_bootmem will make sure free_bootmem_core only free
> bootmem in the bdata scope.
> so free_bootmem can handle the cross_node bootmem that is done by
> reserve_early ( done in another patch, is dropped by you because took
> Jonannes).
>
> in setup_arch for x86_64 there is one free_bootmem that is used when
> ramdisk is falled out of ram map. that could be crossed by bootloader
> and kexec, and kernel or second kernel is memmap=NN@SS to execlue some
> memory.
>
> anyway that is extrem case, but my patch could handle that.
>
> I wonder if any regression caused by my previous patch? maybe on other platform?
>

Not that I'm aware of.

I restored mm-make-reserve_bootmem-can-crossed-the-nodes.patch. Johannes,
can you please check 2.6.28-rc8-mm2, see if it looks OK?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-15 09:39    [W:0.462 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site