[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa79d98a0804072114q300e336eoec814ad6053c934d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 08:14:13 +0400
From: "Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bootmem allocator
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> >
> > > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Ingo, Peter,
> > >>
> > >> small question. It was a patch recently posted which removes memset(x,
> > >> 0, x) after __alloc_bootmem call. There are a few another code
> > >> snippets who still call memset(x, 0, x). And who is responsible for
> > >> memory clearing? bootmem allocator or caller?
> > >
> > > hm, bootmem allocator is supposed to clear memory. We have a couple of
> > > places that rely on that.
> >
> > I was actually considering to change that for the GB pages hugetlbfs
> > patchkit, because memset for 1G is a little slow and not needed (will be cleared later
> > anyways) and it might be a problem for very large systems with a lot of such
> > pages at boot.
>
> add another zalloc_bootmem?
>
> YH
>
I think it would be a good idea ;) Btw maybe would be better to call
memset on the code witch relies on "clear" memory explicitly? So we will
clear memory allocated *only* if we really need this.
Cyrill
--
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