linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86_64: Switch to SPARSE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:03:19 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86_64: Switch to SPARSE_VIRTUAL

On Monday 02 April 2007 09:37, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Hmm, this means there is at least 2MB worth of struct page on every node?
> > Or do you have overlaps with other memory (I think you have)
> > In that case you have to handle the overlap in change_page_attr()
> 
> Correct. 2MB worth of struct page is 128 mb of memory. Are there nodes 
> with smaller amounts of memory?

Do you deal with max_addr= and mem=?

RHEL4 (2.6.9) blows up if max_addr= happens to leave you with CPU-only
nodes.  So hopefully you can deal with arbitrary-sized nodes caused by
max_addr= or mem=.
-
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/