From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pb0-f48.google.com (mail-pb0-f48.google.com [209.85.160.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BC86B0032 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id ma3so1285334pbc.7 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 1so931569qee.0 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:48:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:13 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] x86/mem-hotplug: Support initialize page tables in bottom-up Message-ID: <20130926154813.GA32391@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <5241D897.1090905@gmail.com> <5241DA5B.8000909@gmail.com> <20130926144851.GF3482@htj.dyndns.org> <52445606.7030108@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52445606.7030108@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Zhang Yanfei Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , lenb@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , mingo@elte.hu, "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Toshi Kani , Wanpeng Li , Thomas Renninger , Yinghai Lu , Jiang Liu , Wen Congyang , Lai Jiangshan , isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman , Minchan Kim , mina86@mina86.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, Rik van Riel , jweiner@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com, "x86@kernel.org" , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux MM , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, imtangchen@gmail.com, Zhang Yanfei On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:43:02PM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > > As Yinghai pointed out in another thread, do we need to worry about > > falling back to top-down? > > I've explained to him. Nop, we don't need to worry about that. Because even > the min_pfn_mapped becomes ISA_END_ADDRESS in the second call below, we won't > allocate memory below the kernel because we have limited the allocation above > the kernel. Maybe I misunderstood but wasn't he worrying about there not being enough space above kernel? In that case, it'd automatically fall back to top-down allocation anyway, right? 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