Hello tejun,
On 09/24/2013 04:21 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:07:13AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
>> Yes, I am following your advice in principle but kind of confused by
>> something you said above. Where should the set_memblock_alloc_above_kernel
>> be used? IMO, the function is like:
>>
>> find_in_range_node()
>> {
>> if (ok) {
>> /* bottom-up */
>> ret = __memblock_find_in_range(max(start, _end_of_kernel), end...);
>> if (!ret)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> /* top-down retry */
>> return __memblock_find_in_range_rev(start, end...)
>> }
>>
>> For bottom-up allocation, we always start from max(start, _end_of_kernel).
>
> Oh, I was talking about naming of the memblock_set_bottom_up()
> function. We aren't really doing pure bottom up allocations, so I
> think it probably would be clearer if the name clearly denotes that
> we're doing above-kernel allocation.
I see. But I think memblock_set_alloc_above_kernel may lose the info
that we are doing bottom-up allocation. So my idea is we introduce
pure bottom-up allocation mode in previous patches and we use the
bottom-up allocation here and limit the start address above the kernel
, with explicit comments to indicate this.
How do you think?
Thanks.
>
> Thanks.
>
--
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei
--
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>