Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1207926
| From | Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" |
| Date | 2015-08-15 00:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pXvNL-7b2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pWRQl-8uz-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pWRQl-8uz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <pXuRI-5Qe-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <pXvb3-6cV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pXvkJ-6Dt-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 02:52:15PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:50:05PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: [..] >> > What is the rational for not updating max_pfn, max_low_pfn, ... ? >> > >> >> The idea is that this memory is not meant to be available to the page >> allocator and should not count as new memory capacity. We're only >> hotplugging it to get struct page coverage. > > But this sounds bogus to me to rely on max_pfn to stay smaller than > first_dev_pfn. For instance you might plug a device that register > dev memory and then some regular memory might be hotplug, effectively > updating max_pfn to a value bigger than first_dev_pfn. > True. > Also i do not think that the buddy allocator use max_pfn or max_low_pfn > to consider page/zone for allocation or not. Yes, I took it out with no effects. I'll investigate further whether we should be touching those variables or not for this new usage. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-08-13 06:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 23:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-08-15 00:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 00:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-08-15 00:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-08-15 04:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 23:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-08-18 02:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 19:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-08-18 19:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 21:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2015-08-15 11:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] x86, mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory" Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2015-08-15 15:40 +0200
csiph-web