From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:11:44 +0300 Message-ID: <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > some DT changes. I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. That leaves m68k and ia64 > > Btw. what really needs to be > > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done > > in that regards? > > No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's > a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support. > > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:47720 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753019AbeF0KLy (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 06:11:54 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5R9xI1u042403 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 06:11:53 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jv5a3harw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 06:11:52 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:11:50 +0100 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:11:44 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Message-ID: <20180627101144.M0V8bgpymtDQvp4NPr17CrZxvQFs0a_logMEfyLgJEY@z> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a matter of work? > > Just because no one has done the work. I did a couple of arches > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > some DT changes. I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. That leaves m68k and ia64 > > Btw. what really needs to be > > done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done > > in that regards? > > No. The commits converting the arches are the only documentation. It's > a bit more complicated for platforms that have NUMA support. > > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.