[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060803124628.21540.qmail@web25805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:46:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: moreau francis <francis_moreau2000@...oo.fr>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re : Re : Re : sparsemem usage
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> That would be incorrect usage. pfn_valid() simply doesn't tell you if
> you have memory backing a pfn, it mearly means you can interrogate the
> page* for it. A good example of code which counts pages in a region is
> in count_highmem_pages() which has a form as below:
>
> for (pfn = start; pfn < end; pfn++) {
> if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> continue;
> page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> if (PageReserved(page))
> continue;
> num_physpages++;
> }
>
num_physpages would still not give the right total number of pages in the
system. It will report a value smaller than the size of all memories which can
be suprising, depending on how it is used. In my mind I thought that it should
store the number of all pages in the system (reserved + free + ...).
Futhermore for flatmem model, my example that count the number of physical
pages is valid: reserved pages are really pages that are in used by the kernel.
But it's not valid anymore for sparsemem model. For consistency and code
sharing, I would make the same meaning of pfn_valid() and PageReserved() for
both models.
Francis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists