From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A9B66B02A4 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o6D87EZl008877 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:07:14 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E5B45DE6F for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:07:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E76045DE60 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:07:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D481DB803E for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:07:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C211DB8037 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:07:10 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:02:22 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem Message-Id: <20100713170222.9369e649.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100713165808.e340e6dc.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> <20100713165808.e340e6dc.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 16:58:08 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > 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. allocation of memmap in lower granule than SPARSEMEM. How about stop using SPARSEMEM ? What's the benefit ? It just eats up memory for mem_section[]. Sorry, -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