From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] x86, memblock: Allocate memory near kernel image
 before SRAT parsed.
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:34:28 +0800
Message-ID: <521DC424.5000500@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <1377596268-31552-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130828080311.GA608@hacker.(null)>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:22033 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752797Ab3H1Jfy (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:35:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20130828080311.GA608@hacker.(null)>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, lenb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, tj@kernel.org, trenn@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, jiang.liu@huawei.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, mgorman@suse.de, minchan@kernel.org, mina86@mina86.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, jweiner@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com, zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

Hi Wanpeng

On 08/28/2013 04:03 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Hi Tang,
......
>> [About this patch-set]
>>
>> So this patch-set does the following:
>>
>> 1. Make memblock be able to allocate memory from low address to high address.
>
> I want to know if there is fragmentation degree difference here?
>

Before this patch-set, we mapped memory like this:

1. [0, ISA_END_ADDRESS),
2. [ISA_END_ADDRESS, round_down(max_addr, PMD_SIZE)), from top downwards,
3. [round_down(max_addr, PMD_SIZE), max_addr)


After this patch-set, when movablenode is enabled, it is like:

1. [round_up(_end, PMD_SIZE), max_addr), from _end upwards,
2. [ISA_END_ADDRESS, round_up(_end, PMD_SIZE)),
3. [0, ISA_END_ADDRESS)


All the boundaries are aligned with PMD_SIZE. I think it is the same.

Thanks.