On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:39:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:27:34PM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote: >> >So the issue is only existing when CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM=n. The alternative fix would >> >be similar to what we have on !CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM: In early stage, all page structs >> >for bootmem reserved pages are initialized and mark them with PG_reserved. I'm >> >not sure it's worthy to fix it as we won't support bootmem as Michael mentioned. >> > >> >> Mel, could you please confirm if we need a fix on !CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM? If we need, >> I'll respin and send a patch for review. >> > >Given that CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM is not supported and bootmem is meant to be >slowly retiring, I would suggest instead making deferred memory init >depend on NO_BOOTMEM. > Thanks for confirm, Mel. It would be the best strategy to have simplest fix for this issue. I'll send a followup patch to address it. Thanks, Gavin >-- >Mel Gorman >SUSE Labs > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>