From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jianguo Wu Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:23:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [Patch v4 08/12] memory-hotplug: remove memmap of sparse-vmemmap Message-Id: <50BEBE35.4040807@huawei.com> List-Id: References: <1354010422-19648-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1354010422-19648-9-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <50B5DC00.20103@huawei.com> <50B80FB1.6040906@cn.fujitsu.com> <50BC0D2D.8040008@huawei.com> <50BDBEB7.3070807@cn.fujitsu.com> <50BDEA82.4050809@huawei.com> <50BEAC66.8020500@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <50BEAC66.8020500@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tang Chen Cc: Wen Congyang , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Jiang Liu , Len Brown , benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, Christoph Lameter , Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , Yasuaki Ishimatsu Hi Tang, On 2012/12/5 10:07, Tang Chen wrote: > Hi Wu, > > On 12/04/2012 08:20 PM, Jianguo Wu wrote: > (snip) >>> >>> Seems that we have different ways to handle pages allocated by bootmem >>> or by regular allocator. Is the checking way in [PATCH 09/12] available >>> here ? >>> >>> + /* bootmem page has reserved flag */ >>> + if (PageReserved(page)) { >>> ...... >>> + } >>> >>> If so, I think we can just merge these two functions. >> >> Hmm, direct mapping table isn't allocated by bootmem allocator such as memblock, can't be free by put_page_bootmem(). >> But I will try to merge these two functions. >> > > Oh, I didn't notice this, thanks. :) > > (snip) > >>>> + >>>> + __split_large_page(kpte, address, pbase); >>> >>> Is this patch going to replace [PATCH 08/12] ? >>> >> >> I wish to replace [PATCH 08/12], but need Congyang and Yasuaki to confirm first:) >> >>> If so, __split_large_page() was added and exported in [PATCH 09/12], >>> then we should move it here, right ? >> >> yes. >> >> and what do you think about moving vmemmap_pud[pmd/pte]_remove() to arch/x86/mm/init_64.c, >> to be consistent with vmemmap_populate() ? > > It is a good idea since pud/pmd/pte related code could be platform > dependent. And I'm also trying to move vmemmap_free() to > arch/x86/mm/init_64.c too. I want to have a common interface just > like vmemmap_populate(). :) > Great. >> >> I will rework [PATCH 08/12] and [PATCH 09/12] soon. > > I am rebasing the whole patch set now. And I think I chould finish part > of your work too. A new patch-set is coming soon, and your rework is > also welcome. :) > Since you are rebasing now, I will wait for your new patche-set :). Thanks. Jianguo Wu > Thanks. :) > > > > . >