Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:34:06 +0200, "Franck Bui-Huu" <vagabon.xyz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> can we use pfn_valid() instead of page_is_ram() ? bootmem_init() and
>> sparse_init() have already been called so pfn_valid() should be safe
>> here....
>
> We can, but we can get more precise value using page_is_ram(). The
> pfn_valid() returns true for _all_ pages on present section, and
> currently the section size is 256MB.
so your total pages of RAM in show_mem() is incorrect...
if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
continue;
page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
total++;
I don't know SPARSEMEM a lot but is it allowed to have holes inside
a section ? Shouldn't we tune the section size to avoid holes inside
section ?
>
>>> - max_mapnr = num_physpages = highend_pfn;
>>> + max_mapnr = highend_pfn;
>>> #else
>>> - max_mapnr = num_physpages = max_low_pfn;
>>> + max_mapnr = max_low_pfn;
>> this is not always true, specially if FLATMEM set and your physical mem
>> do not start at 0.
>
> Yes, and I think you are preparing a patch for these systems ;-)
>
good point :)
Franck
