On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0800 Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/18 at 07:06pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:58:45 +0800 Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > erk, this is pretty nasty. Isn't there a better way :( > > > > > > Yes, this is not efficient. > > > > > > In struct resource{}, ->sibling list is a singly linked list. I ever > > > thought about changing it to doubly linked list, yet not very sure if > > > it will have effect since struct resource is a core data structure. > > > > Switching to a list_head sounds OK. The only issue really is memory > > consumption and surely we don't have tens of thousands of struct > > resources floating about(?). Or if we do have a lot, the machine is > > presumably huge (hope?). > > Yes. It doubles the memory consumption. > > AFAIK, the biggest number of resrouces I heard of possibly is mentioned > in this user space kexec_tools commit. In this commit, Xunlei told on > SGI system with 64TB RAM, the array which we have been using to store > "System RAM"|"Reserved"|"ACPI **" regions is not big enough. In that > case, we need extra 8Byte*2048=16KB at most. With my understanding, this > increase is system wide, since each resource instance only needs its own > list_head member, right? Yes. That sounds perfectly acceptable. It would be interesting to see what this approach looks like, if you have time to toss something together? _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec