[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49180771.1050106@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:05:37 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.
ok, let keep irq_desc for legacy irqs not movable...
YH
--
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