From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581BE6B0031 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id at1so8103761iec.30 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j15so2109576qaq.3 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:46:54 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] memblock: Improve memblock to support allocation from lower address. Message-ID: <20130924024654.GE3482@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1379064655-20874-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1379064655-20874-3-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130923155027.GD14547@htj.dyndns.org> <52408351.8080400@gmail.com> <20130923202147.GB28667@mtj.dyndns.org> <5240FBEF.10102@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5240FBEF.10102@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Zhang Yanfei Cc: Zhang Yanfei , Tang Chen , rjw@sisk.pl, lenb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, toshi.kani@hp.com, liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com, trenn@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, jiang.liu@huawei.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, mgorman@suse.de, minchan@kernel.org, mina86@mina86.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, jweiner@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:41:51AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > I see. But I think memblock_set_alloc_above_kernel may lose the info > that we are doing bottom-up allocation. So my idea is we introduce > pure bottom-up allocation mode in previous patches and we use the > bottom-up allocation here and limit the start address above the kernel > , with explicit comments to indicate this. It probably doesn't matter either way. I was just a bit bothered that it's called bottom-up when it implies more including the retry logic. Its use of bottom-up allocation is really an implementation logic to achieve the goal of allocating memory above kernel image after all, but yeah minor point either way. 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org