From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:44:10 +0000 Subject: Re: bug in 2.6.9-rc4-mm1 ia64/mm/init.c Message-Id: <416CEADA.2060207@jp.fujitsu.com> List-Id: References: <16748.57721.66330.638048@napali.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <16748.57721.66330.638048@napali.hpl.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: akepner@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, jbarnes@sgi.com David Mosberger wrote: > Why was this patch even accepted? It seemed rather dubious to me and > I don't recall much discussion on its merits or safety. > > --david At first, that patch it is not essential to no-bitmap-buddy patch, and removing it is okay. It seems that test and discussion are not enough now. Since I heared that all of the pages in a granule on ia64 are guaranteed to exist, I included that in no-bitmap-buddy-patch. (when pagesizek/granuleM,I think this has no effect.) My purpose was to reduce # of page fault when ia64_pfn_valid() is called. It is called heavily in bad_range() (in mm/page_alloc.c) now. Kame