[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100713094612.GF20590@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:46:12 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: 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,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:37:00AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> I prefer Kamezawa's suggestion of mapping on a ZERO_PAGE-like page full
> of PageReserved struct pages because it would have better performance
> and be more in line with maintaining the assumptions of the memory
> model. If we go in this direction, I would strongly prefer it was an
> ARM-only thing.
As I've said, this is not possible without doing some serious page
manipulation.
Plus the pages that where there become unusable as they don't correspond
with a PFN or obey phys_to_virt(). So there's absolutely no point to
this.
Now, why do we free the holes in the mem_map - because these holes can
be extremely large. Every 512K of hole equates to one page of mem_map
array. Balance that against memory placed at 0xc0000000 physical on
some platforms, and with PHYSMEM_BITS at 32 and SECTION_SIZE_BITS at
19 - well, you do the maths. The result is certainly not pretty.
--
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