From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4826B000D for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id f16-v6so2412951edq.18 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s47-v6si2141957edb.123.2018.06.25.11.03.34 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:03:32 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? Message-ID: <20180625180332.GR28965@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Rob Herring Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon 25-06-18 10:09:41, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > some DT changes. I see > > Btw. what really needs to be > > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done > > in that regards? > > No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's > a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support. I do not see why should be NUMA a problem but I will have a look at your commits to see what you have done. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs