From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx180.postini.com [74.125.245.180]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 267746B0083 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dakn40 with SMTP id n40so1648514dak.9 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:50:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1331617001-20906-1-git-send-email-apenwarr@gmail.com> <1331617001-20906-5-git-send-email-apenwarr@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:50:34 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] printk: use alloc_bootmem() instead of memblock_alloc(). From: Yinghai Lu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Avery Pennarun Cc: Andrew Morton , Josh Triplett , "Paul E. McKenney" , Ingo Molnar , "David S. Miller" , Peter Zijlstra , "Fabio M. Di Nitto" , Johannes Weiner , Olaf Hering , Paul Gortmaker , Tejun Heo , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote= : >> that seems not right. >> >> for x86, setup_log_buf(1) is quite early called in setup_arch() before >> bootmem is there. >> >> bootmem should be killed after memblock is supported for arch that >> current support bootmem. > > Hmm. =A0x86 uses nobootmem.c, which implements bootmem in terms of > memblock anyway. =A0It is definitely working at setup_log_buf() time (or > else it wouldn't be able to select a sensible buffer location). ok, you may could do that now. only after recent changes from Tejun, that kill early_node_map(). before that, we only can use nobootmem after arch/x86/kernel/setup.c::setup_arch/initmem_init() but memblock alloc could be used just after arch/x86/kernel/setup.c::setup_arch/memblock_x86_fill() Now you put back bootmem calling early, will cause confusion. > > I suppose you're saying that it wouldn't work for a hypothetical > architecture that *does* support bootmem and *also* supports > setup_log_buf(1). =A0Will there ever be such an architecture, or will > bootmem be retired first? we should use adding memblock_alloc calling instead... go backward... Thanks Yinghai -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org