From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757602AbYDOHh0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:37:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753778AbYDOHhO (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:37:14 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:55918 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752766AbYDOHhN (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:37:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:36:47 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Yinghai Lu" Cc: "Andi Kleen" , "Johannes Weiner" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Yasunori Goto" , "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "Christoph Lameter" Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() Message-Id: <20080415003647.922a9a05.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <86802c440804150028t33fabd7fn40d3d47d0482bfc1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080412223319.372887160@symbol.fehenstaub.lan> <20080412225850.704752615@symbol.fehenstaub.lan> <87lk3hwv52.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080414232308.ffa4e269.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <86802c440804150004w1c94b2dci520e0ffb8b60632f@mail.gmail.com> <20080415001512.60cb784d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <86802c440804150028t33fabd7fn40d3d47d0482bfc1@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:28:34 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Andrew Morton > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:03 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Morton > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Johannes Weiner writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address > > > > > > range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node > > > > > > configurations. > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Andi Kleen > > > > > > > > > > This is far better than the original change it replaces and which > > > > > I also objected to in review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for > > > > 2.6.25? > > > > > > the patch is wrong > > > > > > > The last I saw was this: > > > > > > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:57:22 +0200 Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > "Yinghai Lu" writes: > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > could have chance that bootmem with reserved_early that is crossing > > > > the nodes. > > > > > > Upstream reserve_bootmem_core() would BUG() on a caller trying to cross > > > nodes, so I don't see where this chance could come from. > > > > Is that what you're referring to? > > > > Was Johannes observation incorrect? If so, why? > > my patch with free_bootmem will make sure free_bootmem_core only free > bootmem in the bdata scope. > so free_bootmem can handle the cross_node bootmem that is done by > reserve_early ( done in another patch, is dropped by you because took > Jonannes). > > in setup_arch for x86_64 there is one free_bootmem that is used when > ramdisk is falled out of ram map. that could be crossed by bootloader > and kexec, and kernel or second kernel is memmap=NN@SS to execlue some > memory. > > anyway that is extrem case, but my patch could handle that. > > I wonder if any regression caused by my previous patch? maybe on other platform? > Not that I'm aware of. I restored mm-make-reserve_bootmem-can-crossed-the-nodes.patch. Johannes, can you please check 2.6.28-rc8-mm2, see if it looks OK?