From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:36:48 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: news about IDE PIO HIGHMEM bug (was: Re: 2.6.9-mm1) Message-ID: <30640000.1098898608@flay> In-Reply-To: <417FC5CB.9040204@pobox.com> References: <58cb370e041027074676750027@mail.gmail.com> <417FBB6D.90401@pobox.com> <1246230000.1098892359@[10.10.2.4]> <417FC5CB.9040204@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Linux Kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , "Randy.Dunlap" , William Lee Irwin III , Jens Axboe , Andrew Morton List-ID: > Unfortunately, it's not. > > The block layer just tells us "it's a contiguous run of memory", which implies nothing really about the allocation size. > > Bart and I (and others?) essentially need a "page+1" thing (for 2.4.x too!), that won't break in the face of NUMA/etc. > > Alternatively (or additionally), we may need to make sure the block layer doesn't merge across zones or NUMA boundaries or whatnot. The latter would be rather more efficient. I don't know how often you end up doing each operation though ... the page+1 vs the attemtped merge. Depends on the ratio, I guess. M. -- 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: aart@kvack.org