From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:29:52 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH]Fix usemap for DISCONTIG/FLATMEM with not-aligned zone initilaization. Message-Id: <20080421192952.4e60b11b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080421101231.GA629@csn.ul.ie> References: <20080418161522.GB9147@csn.ul.ie> <48080706.50305@cn.fujitsu.com> <48080930.5090905@cn.fujitsu.com> <48080B86.7040200@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080418211214.299f91cd.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <21878461.1208539556838.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080421112048.78f0ec76.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080421101231.GA629@csn.ul.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Shi Weihua , akpm@linux-foundation.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, hugh@veritas.com List-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:12:32 +0100 Mel Gorman wrote: > On (21/04/08 11:20), KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki didst pronounce: > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:25:56 +0900 (JST) > > kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com wrote: > > > > > >What about something like the following? Instead of expanding the size of > > > >structures, it sanity checks input parameters. It touches a number of places > > > >because of an API change but it is otherwise straight-forward. > > > > > > > >Unfortunately, I do not have an IA-64 machine that can reproduce the problem > > > >to see if this still fixes it or not so a test as well as a review would be > > > >appreciated. What should happen is the machine boots but prints a warning > > > >about the unexpected PFN ranges. It boot-tested fine on a number of other > > > >machines (x86-32 x86-64 and ppc64). > > > > > > > ok, I'll test today if I have a chance. At least, I think I can test this > > > until Monday. but I have one concern (below) > > > > > I tested and found your patch doesn't work. > > It seems because all valid page struct is not initialized. > > The fact I didn't calculate end_pfn properly as pointed out by Dave Hansen > didn't help either. If that was corrected, I'd be surprised if the patch > didn't work. If it is broken, it implies that arch-specific code is using > PFN ranges that do not contain valid memory - something I find surprising. > I noticed and fixed end_pfn but did not work....If necessary, I'll check it again.... Thanks, -Kame -- 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