On 2/26/21 11:59 AM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:38:44PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 2/25/21 7:05 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What if two zones are adjacent? I.e. if the hole was at a boundary
>> >> between two
>> >> zones.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:38:44PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 2/25/21 7:05 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >>
> >> What if two zones are adjacent? I.e. if the hole was at a boundary between
> >> two
> >> zones.
> >
> > What do you mean by "adjacent zones"? If there is a hole near the zone
>
On 2/25/21 7:05 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 06:51:53PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >
>> > unset zone link in struct page will trigger
>> >
>> >VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!zone_spans_pfn(page_zone(page), pfn), page);
>>
>> ... in set_pfnblock_flags_mask() when called with a
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:54:34AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:07 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We might still double-initialize PFNs when two zones overlap within a
> > > section, correct?
> >
> > You mean that a section crosses zones boundary?
> > I don't
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 06:51:53PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 2/24/21 4:39 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport
>
> Hi, thanks for your efforts. I'll just nit pick on the description/comments
> as I
> don't feel confident about judging the implementation correctness, sorry
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:07 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> >
> > We might still double-initialize PFNs when two zones overlap within a
> > section, correct?
>
> You mean that a section crosses zones boundary?
> I don't think it's that important.
What if there was a memory allocation in between
On 25.02.21 18:06, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 04:59:06PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 24.02.21 16:39, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
There could be struct pages that are not backed by actual physical memory.
This can happen when the actual memory bank is not
On 2/24/21 4:39 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> From: Mike Rapoport
Hi, thanks for your efforts. I'll just nit pick on the description/comments as I
don't feel confident about judging the implementation correctness, sorry :)
> There could be struct pages that are not backed by actual physical
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 04:59:06PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.02.21 16:39, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport
> >
> > There could be struct pages that are not backed by actual physical memory.
> > This can happen when the actual memory bank is not a multiple of
> >
On 24.02.21 16:39, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
There could be struct pages that are not backed by actual physical memory.
This can happen when the actual memory bank is not a multiple of
SECTION_SIZE or when an architecture does not register memory holes
reserved by the firmware
From: Mike Rapoport
There could be struct pages that are not backed by actual physical memory.
This can happen when the actual memory bank is not a multiple of
SECTION_SIZE or when an architecture does not register memory holes
reserved by the firmware as memblock.memory.
Such pages are
11 matches
Mail list logo
