Re: [PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Changelog since v2
>  o Change some function names
>  o Remove mark_memmap_hole in memmap bring up
>  o Change CONFIG_SPARSEMEM with CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
>
> I have a plan following as after this patch is acked.
>
> TODO:
> 1) expand pfn_valid to FALTMEM in ARM
> I think we can enhance pfn_valid of FLATMEM in ARM.
> Now it is doing binary search and it's expesive.
> First of all, After we merge this patch, I expand it to FALTMEM of ARM.
>
> 2) remove memmap_valid_within
> We can remove memmap_valid_within by strict pfn_valid's tight check.
>
> 3) Optimize hole check in sparsemem
> In case of spasemem, we can optimize pfn_valid through defining new flag
> like SECTION_HAS_HOLE of hole mem_section.
>

Is there an assumption somewhere that assumes that page->private will
always have MEMMAP_HOLE set when the pfn is invalid, independent of
the context in which it is invoked? BTW, I'd also recommend moving
over to using set_page_private() and page_private() wrappers (makes
the code easier to search)

Balbir

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]