From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: memblock and bootmem problems if start + size = 4GB
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:58:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111229155836.GB3516@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EF05316.5050803@monstr.eu>
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:19:18AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >Yeah, that's an inherent problem in using [) ranges but I think
> >chopping off the last page probably is simpler and more robust
> >solution. Currently, memblock_add_region() would simply ignore if
> >address range overflows but making it just ignore the last page is
> >several lines of addition. Wouldn't that be effective enough while
> >staying very simple?
>
> The main problem is with PFN_DOWN/UP macros and it is in __init section.
> The result will be definitely u32 type (for 32bit archs) anyway and seems to me
> better solution than ignoring the last page.
Other than being able to use one more 4k page, is there any other
benefit? Maybe others had different experiences but in my exprience
trying to extend range coverages - be it stack top/end pointers,
address ranges or whatnot - using [] ranges or special flag usually
ended up adding complexity while adding almost nothing tangible. On
extreme cases, people even carry separate valid flag to use %NULL as
valid address, which is pretty silly, IMHO. So, unless there's some
benefit that I'm missing, I still think it's an overkill. It's more
complex and difficult to test and verify. Why bother for a single
page?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-29 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-19 13:58 memblock and bootmem problems if start + size = 4GB Michal Simek
2011-12-19 16:28 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-20 9:19 ` Michal Simek
2011-12-29 13:44 ` Michal Simek
2011-12-29 15:58 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-12-29 16:46 ` Michal Simek
2011-12-29 17:07 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-30 7:58 ` Michal Simek
2011-12-30 17:45 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111229155836.GB3516@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).