On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > erk, this is pretty nasty. Isn't there a better way :(
> > >
> > > Yes, this is not efficient.
> > >
> > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> > > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> > > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
> >
> > Switching to a list_head sounds OK. The only issue really is memory
> > consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
> > resources floating about(?). Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
> > presumably huge (hope?).
>
> Yes. It doubles the memory consumption.
>
> AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned
> in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on
> SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store
> "System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that
> case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this
> increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own
> list_head member, right?
Yes. That sounds perfectly acceptable.
It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
have time to toss something together?
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
