[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100713170222.9369e649.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:22 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Yakui Zhao <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:58:08 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:34:17 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, sparsemem is designed to be aligned to SECTION_SIZE of memmap.
> > Please avoid adding new Spaghetti code without proper configs.
> > Thanks,
>
> Ok, I realized I misunderstand all. Arm doesn't unmap memmap but reuse the page
> for memmap without modifing ptes. My routine only works when ARM uses sparsemem_vmemmap.
> But yes, it isn't.
>
> Hmm...How about using pfn_valid() for FLATMEM or avoid using SPARSEMEM ?
> If you want conrols lower than SPARSEMEM, FLATMEM works better because ARM unmaps memmap.
allocation of memmap in lower granule than SPARSEMEM.
How about stop using SPARSEMEM ? What's the benefit ? It just eats up memory for
mem_section[].
Sorry,
-Kame
--
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