From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030429Ab2LIILs (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:11:48 -0500 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:5768 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030308Ab2LIILr (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2012 03:11:47 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,246,1355068800"; d="scan'208";a="6359516" Message-ID: <50C44786.30509@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:10:46 +0800 From: Tang Chen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jiang Liu CC: Jiang Liu , hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rob@landley.net, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, yinghai@kernel.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, mgorman@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] page_alloc: Make movablecore_map has higher priority References: <1353667445-7593-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1353667445-7593-5-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <50BF6BA0.8060505@gmail.com> <50BFF443.3090504@cn.fujitsu.com> <50C00259.50901@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <50C00259.50901@huawei.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/12/09 16:10:56, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/12/09 16:10:57, Serialize complete at 2012/12/09 16:10:57 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Liu, Wu, On 12/06/2012 10:26 AM, Jiang Liu wrote: > On 2012-12-6 9:26, Tang Chen wrote: >> On 12/05/2012 11:43 PM, Jiang Liu wrote: >>> If we make "movablecore_map" take precedence over "movablecore/kernelcore", >>> the logic could be simplified. I think it's not so attractive to support >>> both "movablecore_map" and "movablecore/kernelcore" at the same time. Thanks for the advice of removing movablecore/kernelcore. But since we didn't plan to do this in the beginning, and movablecore/kernelcore are more user friendly, I think for now, I'll handle DMA and low memory address problems as you mentioned, and just keep movablecore/kernelcore in the next version. :) And about the SRAT, I think it is necessary to many users. I think we should provide both interfaces. I may give a try in the next version. Thanks. :)