From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756152Ab1CBRSG (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:18:06 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:52678 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755898Ab1CBRSE (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:18:04 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Xhhs69zHhLU08zTQuBhCIust1ptwKmlIqpp3LSxk0ZEqngQ7aSu5hCUb4AhrdZNB4K /2/2vCCftgSsbvffE1kmT05TeXVc2khp/NayN5X02a5Uy8+dnDofZe2/Fa3o+2lB+vVR qmv9Ln76XIiKKufWmx8KxtlEgoYSW1o1ap8xw= Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:07:02 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Ingo Molnar , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Reverting NUMA-affine page table allocation Message-ID: <20110302170702.GS3319@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20110226143730.GA26864@htj.dyndns.org> <20110302161900.GP3319@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:47:54AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > Yeah, it's a pretty interesting piece of code in need of some cleanup. > No, i mean second one is not causing any problem. > > that only take end is intentionally. that will make sure we can get > space for page table even in extreme case. Hmmm... it seems like it only took @end because it always allocated the whole page table in one go. Always from the bottom to top. Am I missing something? > > > If you're interested in doing the above, please go ahead and let me > > > know. > > No. please don't revert it. > > Ingo, please get patches that will align to 1G ... from > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/yinghai/linux-2.6-yinghai.git memblock If you were gonna do that, you could have just said that you objected to the reverting. The message was Request for Comments - soliciting responses. As I wrote multiple times, I think the code as implemented is a bit heavy handed for the problem. And a bigger problem for me is that it kind of just piles on the existing messiness and worsens it. I really hope we wouldn't be doing that anymore. I tried to clean up the page table allocation code but the necessary changes felt a bit too large at this stage, so IMO that's best left to the next cycle. To me, it seems complicated for not good enough reasons. I'll defer the decision to x86 maintainers. Ingo, hpa, Thomas, what do you guys think? Thanks. -- tejun