From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4GKEPpv000626 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 16:14:25 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4GKEPV8135770 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 16:14:25 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4GKEPkj023057 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 16:14:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Factor in buddy allocator alignment requirements in node memory alignment From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:14:11 -0700 Message-Id: <1116274451.1005.106.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: christoph Cc: linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 12:05 -0700, christoph wrote: > Memory for nodes on i386 is currently aligned on 2 MB boundaries. > However, the buddy allocator needs pages to be aligned on > PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER which is 8MB if MAX_ORDER = 11. Why do you need this? Are you planning on allowing NUMA KVA remap pages to be handed over to the buddy allocator? That would be a major departure from what we do now, and I'd be very interested in seeing how that is implemented before a infrastructure for it goes in. BTW, how sure are you that those alignment restrictions really still exist? Some of them went away when we got rid of the buddy bitmap. You might want to check that you definitely need this. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org