[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB17C36.3030406@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:21:10 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: michael@...erman.id.au
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/31] lmb: Add reserve_lmb/free_lmb
On 03/29/2010 09:13 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 16:53 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On 03/29/2010 04:34 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:37 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>> We just need a lmb.alloc_limit and a lmb_set_alloc_limit() which arch
>>>>> code calls when it knows what the alloc limit is (and can call multiple
>>>>> times during boot). Or maybe it should be called "default_alloc_limit",
>>>>> but that's getting a bit long winded.
>>>>
>>>> ok, I will get_max_mapped() for now, an will change to new field...later
>>>
>>> No. Do it now. get_max_mapped() sucks as an identifier.
>>>
>>
>> ok, can i reuse rmo_size, or introduce one new member in struct lmb.
>>
>> default_limit?
>
> alloc_limit or default_alloc_limit
>
looks that is not accurate.
if someone want to find some area, but not going to access that range, then we should let them alloc it.
how about access_limit?
Thanks
Yinghai Lu
--
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