[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1007300745180.9007@router.home>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:48:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v4
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Dave Hansen wrote:
> SPARSEMEM_EXTREME would be a bit different. It's a 2-level lookup.
> You'd have 16 "section roots", each representing 256MB of address space.
> Each time we put memory under one of those roots, we'd fill in a
> 512-section second-level table, which is designed to always fit into one
> page. If you start at 256MB, you won't waste all those entries.
That is certain a solution to the !MMU case and it would work very much
like a page table. If you have an MMU then the vmemmap sparsemem
configuration can take advantage of of that to avoid the 2 level lookup.
--
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