From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AAB6B004D for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:38:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:38:15 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] replace various uses of num_physpages by totalram_pages Message-ID: <20090818153815.GA11913@elte.hu> References: <4A8AE6280200007800010539@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A8AE6280200007800010539@vpn.id2.novell.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell List-ID: * Jan Beulich wrote: > Sizing of memory allocations shouldn't depend on the number of > physical pages found in a system, as that generally includes > (perhaps a huge amount of) non-RAM pages. The amount of what > actually is usable as storage should instead be used as a basis > here. > > Some of the calculations (i.e. those not intending to use high > memory) should likely even use (totalram_pages - > totalhigh_pages). > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > Acked-by: Rusty Russell > > --- > arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c | 4 ++-- Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Just curious: how did you find this bug? Did you find this by experiencing problems on a system with a lot of declared non-RAM memory? Ingo -- 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