Hi Wu,
On 12/04/2012 08:20 PM, Jianguo Wu wrote:
(snip)
Seems that we have different ways to handle pages allocated by bootmem
or by regular allocator. Is the checking way in [PATCH 09/12] available
here ?
+ /* bootmem page has reserved flag */
+ if (PageReserved(page)) {
......
+ }
If so, I think we can just merge these two functions.
Hmm, direct mapping table isn't allocated by bootmem allocator such as memblock, can't be free by put_page_bootmem().
But I will try to merge these two functions.
Oh, I didn't notice this, thanks. :)
(snip)
+
+ __split_large_page(kpte, address, pbase);
Is this patch going to replace [PATCH 08/12] ?
I wish to replace [PATCH 08/12], but need Congyang and Yasuaki to confirm first:)
If so, __split_large_page() was added and exported in [PATCH 09/12],
then we should move it here, right ?
yes.
and what do you think about moving vmemmap_pud[pmd/pte]_remove() to arch/x86/mm/init_64.c,
to be consistent with vmemmap_populate() ?
It is a good idea since pud/pmd/pte related code could be platform
dependent. And I'm also trying to move vmemmap_free() to
arch/x86/mm/init_64.c too. I want to have a common interface just
like vmemmap_populate(). :)
I will rework [PATCH 08/12] and [PATCH 09/12] soon.
I am rebasing the whole patch set now. And I think I chould finish part
of your work too. A new patch-set is coming soon, and your rework is
also welcome. :)
Thanks. :)
--
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>