Messages in this thread | | | From | Johannes Weiner <> | Subject | Re: [patch] mm: node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() | Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:52:48 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: > >> > void __init free_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size) >> > { >> > bootmem_data_t *bdata; >> > - list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) >> > - free_bootmem_core(bdata, addr, size); >> > + unsigned long pos = addr; >> > + unsigned long partsize = size; >> > + >> > + list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) { >> > + unsigned long remainder = 0; >> > + >> > + if (pos < bdata->node_boot_start) >> > + continue; >> > + >> > + if (PFN_DOWN(pos + partsize) > bdata->node_low_pfn) { >> > + remainder = PFN_DOWN(pos + partsize) - bdata->node_low_pfn; >> > + partsize -= remainder; >> > + } >> > + >> > + free_bootmem_core(bdata, pos, partsize); >> > + >> > + if (!remainder) >> > + return; >> > + >> > + pos = PFN_PHYS(bdata->node_low_pfn + 1); >> > + } >> > + printk(KERN_ERR "free_bootmem: request: addr=%lx, size=%lx, " >> > + "state: pos=%lx, partsize=%lx\n", addr, size, >> > + pos, partsize); >> > + BUG(); >> > } >> > >> > unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem(void) >> >> Yes, looks good. But needs explicit testing, I guess. > > yep, but as Yinghai Lu has pointed it out, this removes a cross-node > allocation fix. That fix has to be preserved in any cleanup, agreed?
Yes, if Yinghai is right, my patch should be dropped, of course.
> in general bootmem should assume the weirdest of NUMA topologies and be > defensive about them. Topologies will only become more complex, never > less complex.
Okay.
Hannes
| |