[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081110100329.GA19970@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:03:29 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq
* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:40:33 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> @@ -987,6 +988,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> set_highmem_pages_init();
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + after_bootmem = 1;
> >>>> this hack can go away once we have a proper percpu_alloc() that can be
> >>>> used early enough.
> >>> where is that fancy patch? current percpu_alloc(), will keep big
> >>> pointer in array..., instead of put that pointer in percpu_area
> >>>
> >>> 64bit has that after_bootmem already.
> >> or at least introduce a "bootmem agnostic" allocator instead of
> >> open-coding the after_bootmem flag.
> >>
> >> Something like:
> >>
> >> early_kzalloc()
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> Andrew, any preferences?
> >
> > My mind reading ain't what it was, and this after_bootmem flag is
> > write-only in this patch.
> >
> > So what's all this about?
>
> if i use alloc_bootmem to get some memory, and later after_bootmem,
> can I use kfree to free it?
hm, no. If we used alloc_bootmem(), then we must not free it after
after_bootmem has been set.
Ingo
--
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