Hi, Dave. On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:35:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 00:43 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > 3 is not a big deal than 2 about memory usage. > > If the system use memory space fully(MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS 31), it just consumes > > 1024(128 * 8) byte. So now I think best solution is 2. > > > > Russell. What do you think about it? > > I'm not Russell, but I'll tell you what I think. :) > No problem. :) > Make the sections 16MB. You suggestion to add the start/end pfns I hope so. > _doubles_ the size of the structure, and its size overhead. We have > systems with a pretty tremendous amount of memory with 16MB sections. Yes. it does in several GB server system. > > If you _really_ can't make the section size smaller, and the vast > majority of the sections are fully populated, you could hack something > in. We could, for instance, have a global list that's mostly readonly > which tells you which sections need to be have their sizes closely > inspected. That would work OK if, for instance, you only needed to > check a couple of memory sections in the system. It'll start to suck if > you made the lists very long. Thanks for advise. As I say, I hope Russell accept 16M section. > > -- Dave > -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>