[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1279038933.10995.9.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:35:33 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
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>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 00:43 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> 3 is not a big deal than 2 about memory usage.
> If the system use memory space fully(MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS 31), it just consumes
> 1024(128 * 8) byte. So now I think best solution is 2.
>
> Russell. What do you think about it?
I'm not Russell, but I'll tell you what I think. :)
Make the sections 16MB. You suggestion to add the start/end pfns
_doubles_ the size of the structure, and its size overhead. We have
systems with a pretty tremendous amount of memory with 16MB sections.
If you _really_ can't make the section size smaller, and the vast
majority of the sections are fully populated, you could hack something
in. We could, for instance, have a global list that's mostly readonly
which tells you which sections need to be have their sizes closely
inspected. That would work OK if, for instance, you only needed to
check a couple of memory sections in the system. It'll start to suck if
you made the lists very long.
-- Dave
--
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