From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA47rl0s024237 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 02:53:47 -0500 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mA47rlr2091812 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 02:53:47 -0500 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mA47rbHc003351 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 02:53:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] hibernation should work ok with memory hotplug From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <1225783837.6755.33.camel@nigel-laptop> References: <20081029105956.GA16347@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20081103125108.46d0639e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1225747308.12673.486.camel@nimitz> <200811032324.02163.rjw@sisk.pl> <1225751665.12673.511.camel@nimitz> <1225771353.6755.16.camel@nigel-laptop> <1225782572.12673.540.camel@nimitz> <1225783837.6755.33.camel@nigel-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:53:44 -0800 Message-Id: <1225785224.12673.564.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nigel Cunningham Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matt Tolentino , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, pavel@suse.cz, Mel Gorman , Andy Whitcroft , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 18:30 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > One other question, if I may. Would you please explain (or point me to > an explanation) of PHYS_PFN_OFFSET/ARCH_PFN_OFFSET? I've been dealing > occasionally with people wanting to have hibernation on arm, and I don't > really get the concept or the implementation (particularly when it comes > to trying to do the sort of iterating over zones and pfns that was being > discussed in previous messages in this thread. First of all, I think PHYS_PFN_OFFSET is truly an arch-dependent construct. It only appears in arm an avr32. I'll tell you only how ARCH_PFN_OFFSET looks to me. My guess is that those two arches need to reconcile themselves and start using ARCH_PFN_OFFSET instead. In the old days, we only had memory that started at physical address 0x0 and went up to some larger address. We allocated a mem_map[] of 'struct pages' in one big chunk, one for each address. mem_map[0] was for physical address 0x0 and mem_map[1] was for 0x1000, mem_map[2] was for 0x2000 and so on... If a machine didn't have a physical address 0x0, we allocated mem_map[] for it anyway and just wasted that entry. What ARCH_PFN_OFFSET does is let us bias the mem_map[] structure so that mem_map[0] does not represent 0x0. If ARCH_PFN_OFFSET is 1, then mem_map[0] actually represents the physical address 0x1000. If it is 2, then mem_map[0] represents physical addr 0x2000. ARCH_PFN_OFFSET means that the first physical address on the machine is at ARCH_PFN_OFFSET*PAGE_SIZE. We bias all lookups into the mem_map[] so that we don't waste space in it. There will never be a zone_start_pfn lower than ARCH_PFN_OFFSET, for instance. What does that mean for walking zones? Nothing. It only has meaning for how we allocate and do lookups into the mem_map[]. But, since everyone uses pfn_to_page() and friends, you don't ever see this. I'm curious why you think you need to be concerned with it. -- 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