[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50B38F69.6020902@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:48:57 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
CC: wujianguo <wujianguo106@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rob@...dley.net, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, linfeng@...fujitsu.com,
jiang.liu@...wei.com, yinghai@...nel.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
mgorman@...e.de, rientjes@...gle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, wujianguo@...wei.com,
qiuxishi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] page_alloc: Bootmem limit with movablecore_map
On 11/26/2012 05:15 AM, Tang Chen wrote:
>
> Hi Wu,
>
> That is really a problem. And, before numa memory got initialized,
> memblock subsystem would be used to allocate memory. I didn't find any
> approach that could fully address it when I making the patches. There
> always be risk that memblock allocates memory on ZONE_MOVABLE. I think
> we can only do our best to prevent it from happening.
>
> Your patch is very helpful. And after a shot look at the code, it seems
> that acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() is an architecture dependent
> function. Could we do this somewhere which is not depending on the
> architecture ?
>
The movable memory should be classified as a non-RAM type in memblock,
that way we will not allocate from it early on.
-hpa
--
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