[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250509141050.4b19bc796d7edf2eb9027361@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 14:10:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Zi
Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
rafael@...nel.org, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Ritesh Harjani
<ritesh.list@...il.com>, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>, Yury Norov
<yury.norov@...il.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] driver/base: Optimize memory block registration
to reduce boot time
On Fri, 9 May 2025 21:10:34 +0530 Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> Then we can drop the call to register_memory_blocks_under_node() from
> >> register_one_node() and add creation of memory blocks to
> >> node_dev_init(),
> >> i.e.
> >>
> >> node_dev_init()
> >> for_each_node(nid)
> >> __register_one_node(nid)
> >> for_each_mem_region()
> >> /* create memory block if node matches */
> >
> > Yes exactly, that makes sense.
>
> Hi Andrew and Mike
>
> Based on the discussion so far, it is clear that the patch will work in all cases,
> including when CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK is disabled. Just checking —
> would you prefer to take this version, or should I send a v4?
My mind is a blank and perhaps some alterations were picked up along
the way so I think a full resend would be safer, please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists