[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020910280438j65bcacacq731f6076cbd8d99@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:38:42 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
dwmw2@...radead.org, joerg.roedel@....com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] bootmem: add free_bootmem_late
Hi Tejun,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> ISTR an attempt to initialize the kmalloc allocator much earlier
> during boot such that it can completely replace the bootmem allocator,
> which would nicely remove all the complications although it may
> require the kmalloc allocator to go through more complex boot
> strapping steps. I didn't follow how that went. Did it prove to be
> unworkable?
We're doing it before scheduler init now but I haven't put any effort
into moving it earlier than that yet. I don't see any fundamental
reason we can't do that but the practical problem is that we're going
to affect architecture specific boot code which is really hard to
test.
Pekka
--
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