From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Van Maren, Kevin" <kevin.vanmaren@unisys.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:34:47 +0000
Subject: RE: discontig patch question
Message-Id: <marc-linux-ia64-106848931331816@msgid-missing>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <marc-linux-ia64-106847971018555@msgid-missing>
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-106847971018555@msgid-missing>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

> Yeah, but 1UL<<MAX_ORDER will always be page aligned, right?

Only if MAX_ORDER >= PAGE_SHIFT.

But page alignment isn't the question: it is already aligned to
the 16MB or 64MB granules.

But you are saying that the address doesn't have to be as strict:
even if allocating 2^MAX_ORDER _pages_, the start doesn't have to
be aligned at a natural (PAGE_SIZE<<MAX_ORDER) boundary, and that
we can change the ORDERROUNDDOWN to not be as aggressive.


But then it also makes sense to have a smaller MAX_ORDER when not
using 4GB hugepages?  I'm happy with <= 256MB hugepages with 16GB ram,
so I guess I'd rather MAX_ORDER was normally smaller, and increased
only with very large hugepage pages.

Thanks,
Kevin Van Maren