Re: [PATCH] no buddy bitmap patch : intro and includes [0/2]

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

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
 >>>>What was the purpose behind this, again? Sorry, has been too long since
 >>>>I last looked.

>>On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 08:03, Tolentino, Matthew E wrote:
>>
>>For one, it avoids the otherwise requisite resizing of the bitmaps=20
>>during memory hotplug operations...
>>

 >> Dave McCracken wrote:
>> The memory allocator bitmaps are the main remaining reason we need the
>> concept of linear memory.  If we can get rid of them, it's one step closer
>> to managing memory as a set of sections.

 >>--Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote (on Thursday, October 07, 2004 08:39:38 -0700)
>>It also simplifies the nonlinear implementation.  The whole reason we
>>had the lpfn (Linear) stuff was so that the bitmaps could represent a
>>sparse physical address space in a much more linear fashion.  With no
>>bitmaps, this isn't an issue, and gets rid of a lot of code, and a
>>*huge* source of bugs where lpfns and pfns are confused for each other. 
> 
> 
> Makese sense on both counts. Would be nice to add the justification to 
> the changelog ;-)
> 

It seems all I should answer is already answered.
Thank you all.

I'll add the purpose to the changelog.

Kame <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

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