From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754571AbYDOH2v (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:28:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760004AbYDOH2g (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:28:36 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.246]:59666 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759933AbYDOH2f (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:28:35 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eCEhsPvoSKEJD+xn76RqFg1W/Is/qz+YyrbOJjHKLKJ3dsyOgqcAQhPkrYHISuvL5Bf15A0hF9jb1rkbwbN+UDI/f3f+8Ci1zEN6osDJgjGKl3DoQX9Jyo8RYP69i6k+PvdgV0sd/GW9bXYJPuvsFdOAqHmc7zJ6v0j4cQidMZA= Message-ID: <86802c440804150028t33fabd7fn40d3d47d0482bfc1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:28:34 -0700 From: "Yinghai Lu" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() Cc: "Andi Kleen" , "Johannes Weiner" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Yasunori Goto" , "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "Christoph Lameter" In-Reply-To: <20080415001512.60cb784d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? YH