[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110414040337.GC12781@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:03:37 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.39-rc3
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:33:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. However, even if we *do* revert (and the time is running short on
> >> not reverting) I would like to understand this particular one, simply
> >> because I think it may very well be a problem that is manifesting itself
> >> in other ways on other systems.
>
> sorry, fingerfart. Anyway, I agree 100%.
>
> we definitely want to also understand the reason for things not
> working, even if we do revert..
There were (and still are) places where memblock callers implemented
ad-hoc top-down allocation by stepping down start limit until
allocation succeeds. Several of them have been removed since top-down
became the default behavior, so simply reverting the commit is likely
to cause subtle issues. Maybe the best approach is introducing
@topdown parameter and use it selectively for pure memory allocations.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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