[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D50343E.1020906@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:04:46 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/init: respect memblock reserved regions when destroying
mappings
On 02/07/2011 08:50 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On 02/05/2011 11:30 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2011 11:02 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> why not just move calling cleanup_highmap down?
>>>>
>>>> something like attached patch.
>>>
>>> This patch looks very clean and looks on the surface of it like it is
>>> removing some ugly ad hoc code, but (as always) it needs a description
>>> about the problem it solves and why it is correct.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>
>> Jeremy and xen guys, can you please check if it works well with xen ?
>>
>
> Actually this patch makes things worse on xen, because before
> cleanup_highmap() wasn't called at all on xen (on purpose) and now it
> is, fully destroying all the mappings we have at _end.
>
> Can we add a check on memblock reserved regions in cleanup_highmap()?
> Otherwise could we avoid calling cleanup_highmap() at all on xen?
why DO xen need over-mapped kernel initial mapping?
what is in that range after _end to 512M?
Yinghai
--
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