[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121114173928.GK3290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:39:28 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] introduce static_vm for ARM-specific static
mapped area
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:55:51AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> In current implementation, we used ARM-specific flag, that is,
> VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING, for distinguishing ARM specific static mapped area.
> The purpose of static mapped area is to re-use static mapped area when
> entire physical address range of the ioremap request can be covered
> by this area.
>
> This implementation causes needless overhead for some cases.
In what cases?
> We unnecessarily iterate vmlist for finding matched area even if there
> is no static mapped area. And if there are some static mapped areas,
> iterating whole vmlist is not preferable.
Why not? Please put some explanation into your message rather than
just statements making unexplained assertions.
> Another reason for doing this work is for removing architecture dependency
> on vmalloc layer. I think that vmlist and vmlist_lock is internal data
> structure for vmalloc layer. Some codes for debugging and stat inevitably
> use vmlist and vmlist_lock. But it is preferable that they are used outside
> of vmalloc.c as least as possible.
The vmalloc layer is also made available for ioremap use, and it is
intended that architectures hook into this for ioremap support.
--
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