[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ve1gpumo.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:12:47 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] bootmem2 III
Hi Andi,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes:
>> I was wondering yesterday if it would be feasible to enforce
>> contiguousness for nodes.
>
> And lose the memory? That would make people not happy.
No, one node descriptor per contiguous block on the physical node.
So this setup:
node 0: 0-2G, 4-6G
node 1: 2-4G, 6-8G
would have 4 pgdats.
>> So that arch-code does not create one pgdat
>> for each node but one for each contiguous block. I have not yet looked
>> deeper into it, but I suspect that other mm code has similar problems
>> with nodes spanning other nodes.
>
> I wouldn't think so. At least sparse memory with large holes is not that
> uncommon in the non x86 world.
I do not quite understand. Holes are not the problem - the overlapping
is.
The current bootmem allocator for example might pass the same pfn twice
to the buddy allocator when two nodes overlap. And I don't know if
other mm code has the same problem.
Hannes
--
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