On 03/29/2010 04:31 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 09:20 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>
>> But that's my point. You shouldn't need to touch the existing API, and
>> you shouldn't need to add a new parallel API. You should just be able to
>> add the logic for doubling the array in the lmb core, and then everyone
>> gets dynamically expandable lmb. I don't see any reason why we want to
>> have two APIs.
>
> Ack.
ok, we can merge them later.
>
>>>> It seems to me that rather than adding these "special" routines that
>>>> check for enough space on the way in, instead you should be checking in
>>>> lmb_add_region() - which is where AFAICS all allocs/frees/reserves
>>>> eventually end up if they need to insert a new region.
>>>
>>> later i prefer to replace lmb_alloc with find_lmb_area + reserve_lmb.
>>
>> Why? The existing code has been working for years and is well tested?
>
> I still don't totally understand why he needs a find_lmb_area()
> anyways.
>
> It might be justified ... or not. I just want it to be better
> documented.
current changelog for that
------------------
Subject: [PATCH 6/31] lmb: Add lmb_find_area()
It will try find area according with size/align in specified range (start, end).
Need use it find correct buffer for new lmb.reserved.region.
also make it more easy for x86 to use lmb.
x86 early_res is using find/reserve pattern instead of alloc.
lmb_find_area() will honor goal
When we need temporary buff for range array etc for range work, if We are using
lmb_alloc(), We will need to add some post fix code for buffer that is used
by range array, because it is in the lmb.reserved already.
----------------
in short: It could make us to avoid use the range that we are going to reserve,
when we try to get new position new lmb.reserved.region.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
