Re: [PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v3

[Balbir Singh]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Changelog since v2
>  o Change some function names
>  o Remove mark_memmap_hole in memmap bring up
>  o Change CONFIG_SPARSEMEM with CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
>
> I have a plan following as after this patch is acked.
>
> TODO:
> 1) expand pfn_valid to FALTMEM in ARM
> I think we can enhance pfn_valid of FLATMEM in ARM.
> Now it is doing binary search and it's expesive.
> First of all, After we merge this patch, I expand it to FALTMEM of ARM.
>
> 2) remove memmap_valid_within
> We can remove memmap_valid_within by strict pfn_valid's tight check.
>
> 3) Optimize hole check in sparsemem
> In case of spasemem, we can optimize pfn_valid through defining new flag
> like SECTION_HAS_HOLE of hole mem_section.
>

Is there an assumption somewhere that assumes that page->private will
always have MEMMAP_HOLE set when the pfn is invalid, independent of
the context in which it is invoked? BTW, I'd also recommend moving
over to using set_page_private() and page_private() wrappers (makes
the code easier to search)

Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/