[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D1A6021.2010905@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:09:37 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] memblock related top down
On 12/28/2010 01:36 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2010 04:58 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> Please check
>>>
>>> Those three patches to make memblock allocation more top to down.
>>>
>>
>> Please explain what you mean with "more top to down". Not what the code
>> does, but what is the goal of the patchset.
>
> for example first node with 16g ram, it is into two parts: [0, 2g),
> and [4g, 18g).
>
> alloc_bootmem will get allocation from [0, 2g) always until we have
> can not find more.
>
> with third patch, it will try to get from [4g, 18g) at first.
>
> second patch is need to applied before third patch, because old way
> happenly get under 4g for generic bootmem under 4g
>
> First one is trying not to put page table for [0, 4g) under 512M.
>
The goal of this is to free up low memory for DMA and kdump, I presume?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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