From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964799AbWGHLnx (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 07:43:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964801AbWGHLnx (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 07:43:53 -0400 Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]:37686 "EHLO mtagate2.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964799AbWGHLnw (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 07:43:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:42:01 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens To: Mel Gorman Cc: akpm@osdl.org, davej@codemonkey.org.uk, tony.luck@intel.com, ak@suse.de, bob.picco@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V8 Message-ID: <20060708114201.GA9419@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20060708111042.28664.14732.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060708111042.28664.14732.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Linux) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > There are differences in the zone sizes for x86_64 as the arch-specific code > for x86_64 accounts the kernel image and the starting mem_maps as memory > holes but the architecture-independent code accounts the memory as present. Shouldn't this be the same for all architectures? Or to put it in other words: why does only x86_64 account the kernel image as memory hole?