Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: [RFC] buddy allocator without bitmap [3/4]

[Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Dave Hansen wrote:
>>1. Now, I think some small parts, some essence of mem_section which
>>   makes pfn_valid() faster may be good.
> 
> 
> The only question is what it will take when there's a partially populate
> mem_section.  We'll almost certainly have to allow it, but the real
> question is whether or not we will ever have a partially populated one
> that's not at the end of memory.  
> 
Hmm....I cannot answer it fully.

My tiger4 (Itanium x 2) shows aligned_order=0, because it has a mem_map
start with address 0x????????3(I forget now), odd number ;(.
I like a mechine in which all memory are aligned.....

>>And another way,
>>
>>2. A method which enables page -> page's max_order calculation
>>   may be good and consistent way in this no-bitmap approach.
>>
>>But this problem would be my week-end homework :).
> 
> 
> Instead of adding more stuff to the mem_section, we might be able to
> (ab)use more stuff in the mem_map's mem_map, like I am with
> page->section right now.  

I wonder if there is another way which doesn't increase memory usage
in boottime, it will be better.
I'll going on considering the way to fix nr_mem_map things.

Thanks
-- Kame


-- 
--the clue is these footmarks leading to the door.--
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

--
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: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>