From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 02:01:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 02:01:31 -0500 Received: from [217.7.28.131] ([217.7.28.131]:60430 "EHLO inetgate.hob.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 02:01:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3C5F80F2.54AF98E3@hob.de> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:51:30 +0100 From: Christian Hildner Organization: hob electronic X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [de]C-CCK-MCD DT (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jes Sorensen Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, LKML Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] kmalloc() size-limitation In-Reply-To: <3C3D6A89.27EAA4C7@hob.de> <15421.61910.163437.45726@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3C3ED5E7.8BA479B7@hob.de> <15423.5404.65155.924018@napali.hpl.hp.com> <3C43D6EC.74B4EC85@hob.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jes Sorensen schrieb: > Christian Hildner writes: > > > David, > > > > you proposed me to use alloc_pages() instead of kmalloc() in order > > to get memory bigger than the 128K limit of the kmalloc() call. But > > even driver-developers don't want to handle with the page struct > > unless this is unavoidable. Which are the disadvantages of > > increasing the size limit of kmalloc() to 256K, 512K or 1M since > > machines are getting bigger and 64Bit machines break with current > > memory limitations? > > Because drivers needs to work on all architectures and relying on > different hahavior from kmalloc() is bad. > > Jes Jes, sorry for being unclear. I mean from increasing the kmalloc() size-limit all platforms would benefit. Christian PS: David, I am looking forward getting your book. You are doing a great job.