All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, takahiro.akashi@linaro.org,
	ebiederm@xmission.com, dyoung@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:33:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180324133330.GD25740@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180323130620.7d60fc442463ed5c21898387@linux-foundation.org>

On 03/23/18 at 01:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, this is not efficient.
> > > > 
> > > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> > > > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> > > > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
> > > 
> > > Switching to a list_head sounds OK.  The only issue really is memory
> > > consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
> > > resources floating about(?).  Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
> > > presumably huge (hope?).
> > 
> > Yes. It doubles the memory consumption.
> > 
> > AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned
> > in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on
> > SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store
> > "System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that
> > case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this
> > increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own
> > list_head member, right?
> 
> Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
> have time to toss something together?

OK, will make patches for reviewing. Thanks!

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, takahiro.akashi@linaro.org,
	ebiederm@xmission.com, dyoung@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:33:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180324133330.GD25740@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180323130620.7d60fc442463ed5c21898387@linux-foundation.org>

On 03/23/18 at 01:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > erk, this is pretty nasty.  Isn't there a better way :(
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, this is not efficient.
> > > > 
> > > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever
> > > > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if
> > > > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure.
> > > 
> > > Switching to a list_head sounds OK.  The only issue really is memory
> > > consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct
> > > resources floating about(?).  Or if we do have a lot, the machine is
> > > presumably huge (hope?).
> > 
> > Yes. It doubles the memory consumption.
> > 
> > AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned
> > in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on
> > SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store
> > "System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that
> > case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this
> > increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own
> > list_head member, right?
> 
> Yes.  That sounds perfectly acceptable.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you
> have time to toss something together?

OK, will make patches for reviewing. Thanks!

  reply	other threads:[~2018-03-24 13:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-22  3:37 [PATCH 0/2] Kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system ram Baoquan He
2018-03-22  3:37 ` Baoquan He
2018-03-22  3:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev() Baoquan He
2018-03-22  3:37   ` Baoquan He
2018-03-22 22:29   ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-22 22:29     ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-23  0:58     ` Baoquan He
2018-03-23  0:58       ` Baoquan He
2018-03-23  2:06       ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-23  2:06         ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-23  3:10         ` Baoquan He
2018-03-23  3:10           ` Baoquan He
2018-03-23 20:06           ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-23 20:06             ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-24 13:33             ` Baoquan He [this message]
2018-03-24 13:33               ` Baoquan He
2018-03-24 16:13               ` Wei Yang
2018-03-24 16:13                 ` Wei Yang
2018-03-26 14:30                 ` Baoquan He
2018-03-26 14:30                   ` Baoquan He
2018-03-26 15:04                   ` Wei Yang
2018-03-26 15:04                     ` Wei Yang
2018-03-22  3:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required Baoquan He
2018-03-22  3:37   ` Baoquan He
2018-03-22 22:38 ` [PATCH 0/2] Kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system ram Andrew Morton
2018-03-22 22:38   ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-23  8:38   ` Baoquan He
2018-03-23  8:38     ` Baoquan He
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-11-14  9:16 [PATCH 0/2] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required Baoquan He
2023-11-14  9:16 ` [PATCH 1/2] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev() Baoquan He
2023-11-14  9:16   ` Baoquan He
2023-11-14  9:16   ` Baoquan He
2023-11-14  9:16   ` Baoquan He
2023-11-14 23:17   ` Andrew Morton
2023-11-14 23:17     ` Andrew Morton
2023-11-14 23:17     ` Andrew Morton
2023-11-14 23:17     ` Andrew Morton
2023-11-15  0:40     ` Baoquan He
2023-11-15  0:40       ` Baoquan He
2023-11-15  0:40       ` Baoquan He
2023-11-15  0:40       ` Baoquan He

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180324133330.GD25740@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=prudo@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.