[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87iqzp5xfv.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: 14 Mar 2008 12:58:44 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
clameter@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Yasunori Goto" <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
"KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix boundary checking in free_bootmem_core
"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> writes:
>
> then i tried to reserve 64M or 128M RAM before that, and free that
> before gart/switotble try to allloc_bootmem under 4g.
Sounds like an incredible hack. There are far better ways to do that
for bootmem allocations. e.g. you can just specify a high enough "goal"
That is how swiotlb solves a similar problem (at least before my
mask allocator rewrite)
> > with your improved free_bootmem()
>
> using phys_to_nid()? it seems we only have that on x86_64.
pfn/page_to_nid() is generic afaik.
> also there is assumpation that reserve_bootmem_node, reserver_bootmem
> can not cross the nodes.
> I want to remove that constrient too.
Makes sense, but that will be much more work and should be all separated.
-Andi
--
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