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 18:58:12 +0300 Message-ID: <20180627155811.GA19182@rapoport-lnx> References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> 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, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > 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 > > And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms > which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Yeah, you are right. I've somehow excluded those that HAVE_MEMBLOCK... > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:52264 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753548AbeF0P6V (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:58:21 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5RFsGsh102657 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:58:20 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jvb5wygtw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:58:20 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:58:18 +0100 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 18:58:12 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20180627155811.GA19182@rapoport-lnx> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Message-ID: <20180627155812.8gp6aNCaFMpPkO_NFOYsddTgw561iHSnFeTukxzlfbA@z> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > 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 > > And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms > which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Yeah, you are right. I've somehow excluded those that HAVE_MEMBLOCK... > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.