From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k8DLlWcL003190 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:47:32 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id k8DLlWGv158948 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:47:32 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k8DLlWp5032753 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:47:32 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Get rid of zone_table From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: References: <1158180795.9141.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:47:27 -0700 Message-Id: <1158184047.9141.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andy Whitcroft , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Now that I think about it, we should have room to encode that thing inside of the section number on 32-bit platforms. We have 32-bits of space, and we need to encode a number that is a maximum of 4 bits in size. That leaves 28 bits minus the one that we use for the section present bit. Our minimum section size on x86 is something like 64 or 128MB. Let's say 64MB. So, on a 64GB system, we only need 1k sections, and 10 bits. So, the node number would almost certainly fit in the existing mem_section. We'd just need to set it and mask it out. Andy, what do you think? -- 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: email@kvack.org