From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7C9F6B02A4 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o6D82uCW005771 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:57 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C2045DE66 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839E545DE57 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585661DB8042 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A411DB803E for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:56 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:58:08 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem Message-Id: <20100713165808.e340e6dc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100713163417.17895202.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100712155348.GA2815@barrios-desktop> <20100713121947.612bd656.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100713132312.a7dfb100.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100713072009.GA19839@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20100713163417.17895202.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Minchan Kim , Yinghai Lu , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Shaohua Li , Yakui Zhao , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, Mel Gorman List-ID: On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:34:17 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > Anyway, sparsemem is designed to be aligned to SECTION_SIZE of memmap. > Please avoid adding new Spaghetti code without proper configs. > Thanks, Ok, I realized I misunderstand all. Arm doesn't unmap memmap but reuse the page for memmap without modifing ptes. My routine only works when ARM uses sparsemem_vmemmap. But yes, it isn't. Hmm...How about using pfn_valid() for FLATMEM or avoid using SPARSEMEM ? If you want conrols lower than SPARSEMEM, FLATMEM works better because ARM unmaps memmap. What is the reason for SPARSEMEM ? 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