From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:38:50 +0100 (IST) From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060821134518.22179.46355.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Keith Mannthey Cc: akpm@osdl.org, tony.luck@intel.com, Linux Memory Management List , ak@suse.de, bob.picco@hp.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-ID: On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Keith Mannthey wrote: > On 8/21/06, Mel Gorman wrote: >> This is V9 of the patchset to size zones and memory holes in an >> architecture-independent manner. It booted successfully on 5 different >> machines (arches were x86, x86_64, ppc64 and ia64) in a number of different >> configurations and successfully built a kernel. If it fails on any machine, >> booting with loglevel=8 and the console log should tell me what went wrong. >> > > I am wondering why this new api didn't cleanup the pfn_to_nid code > path as well. Arches are left to still keep another set of > nid-start-end info around. We are sending info like > pfn_to_nid() is used at runtime and the early_node_map[] is deleted by then. As this step, I only want to get the initialisation correct. What can be replaced is the architecture-specific early_pfn_to_nid() function which I did for power and x86. > add_active_range(unsigned int nid, unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned > long end_pfn) > > With this info making a common pnf_to_nid seems to be of intrest so we > don't have to keep redundant information in both generic and arch > specific data structures. > To implement a common one of interest, the array would have to be converted to a linked list at the end of boot so it could be modified by memory hot-add, then pfn_to_nid() would walk the linked list rather than the existing array. pfn_valid() would probably be replaced as well. However, this is going to be slower (if more accurate in some cases) than the existing pfn_valid() and so I would treat it as a separate issue. > Are you intending the hot-add memory code path to call add_active_range or > ??? > Not at this time. I want to make sure the memory initialisation is right before dealing with additional complications. > Thanks, > Keith > -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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: email@kvack.org