[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1279305210.9207.250.camel@nimitz>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:33:30 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] v2 Split the memory_block structure
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 13:23 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> > If the memory_block's state was inferred to be the same as each
> > memory_block_section, couldn't we just keep a start and end phys_index
> > in the memory_block, and get away from having memory_block_sections at
> > all?
>
> Oooohhh... I like. Looking at the code it appears this is possible. I'll
> try this out and include it in the next version of the patch.
>
> Do you think we need to add an additional file to each memory block directory
> to indicate the number of memory sections in the memory block that are actually
> present?
I think it's easiest to just say that each 'memory_block' can only hold
contiguous 'memory_block_sections', and we give either the start/end or
start/length pairs. It gets a lot more complicated if we have to deal
with lots of holes.
I can just see the hardware designers reading this thread, with their
Dr. Evil laughs trying to come up with a reason to give us a couple of
terabytes of RAM with only every-other 16MB area populated. :)
-- 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