lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:00:31 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw_memmap.cy * Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > I though one possibility would be to have LMB regions become more lists > > than arrays, so that the static storage only needs to cover as much as > > is needed during really early boot (and we could probably still move the > > BSS top point on some archs to dynamically make more ... actually we > > could be smart arses and use LMB to allocate more LMB list heads if we > > are reaching the table limit :-) > > Actually what about that: > > LMB entries are linked-listed. The array is just storage for those entry > "heads". > > The initial static array only needs to be big enough for very very early > platform specific kernel bits and pieces, so it could even be sized by a > Kconfig option. Or it could just use a klimit moving trick to pick up a > page right after the BSS but that may need to be arch specific. > > lmb_init() queues all the entries from the initial array in a freelist > > lmb_alloc() and lmb_reserve() just pop entries from that freelist to > populate the two main linked lists (memory and reserved). > > When something tries to dequeue up the last freelist entry, then under > the hood, LMB uses it instead to allocate a new block of LMB entries > that gets added to the freelist. > > We never free blocks of LMB entries. > > That way, we can fine tine the static array to be as small as we can > realistically make it be, and we have no boundary limitations on the > amount of entries in either the memory list or the reserved list. > > I'm a bit too flat out right now to write code, but if there's no objection, > I might give that a go either later this week or next week, see if I can > replace bootmem on powerpc. That would be fantastic! PowerPC and x86 both doing it would give it enough of a critical mass to make the removal of bootmem realistic. Thanks, 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