Hello tejun,
On 09/24/2013 04:21 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:07:13AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
>> Yes, I am following your advice in principle but kind of confused by
>> something you said above. Where should the set_memblock_alloc_above_kernel
>> be used? IMO, the function is like:
>>
>> find_in_range_node()
>> {
>> if (ok) {
>> /* bottom-up */
>> ret = __memblock_find_in_range(max(start, _end_of_kernel), end...);
>> if (!ret)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> /* top-down retry */
>> return __memblock_find_in_range_rev(start, end...)
>> }
>>
>> For bottom-up allocation, we always start from max(start, _end_of_kernel).
>
> Oh, I was talking about naming of the memblock_set_bottom_up()
> function. We aren't really doing pure bottom up allocations, so I
> think it probably would be clearer if the name clearly denotes that
> we're doing above-kernel allocation.
I see. But I think memblock_set_alloc_above_kernel may lose the info
that we are doing bottom-up allocation. So my idea is we introduce
pure bottom-up allocation mode in previous patches and we use the
bottom-up allocation here and limit the start address above the kernel
, with explicit comments to indicate this.
How do you think?
Thanks.
>
> Thanks.
>
--
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
