Re: [RFT PATCH v1 0/5] fix up inaccurate zone->present_pages

[Jaegeuk Hanse]

On 11/20/2012 10:43 AM, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2012-11-20 10:13, Jaegeuk Hanse wrote:
> > On 11/19/2012 12:07 AM, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > > The commit 7f1290f2f2a4 ("mm: fix-up zone present pages") tries to
> > > resolve an issue caused by inaccurate zone->present_pages, but that
> > > fix is incomplete and causes regresions with HIGHMEM. And it has been
> > > reverted by commit
> > > 5576646 revert "mm: fix-up zone present pages"
> > >
> > > This is a following-up patchset for the issue above. It introduces a
> > > new field named "managed_pages" to struct zone, which counts pages
> > > managed by the buddy system from the zone. And zone->present_pages
> > > is used to count pages existing in the zone, which is
> > >      spanned_pages - absent_pages.
> > >
> > > But that way, zone->present_pages will be kept in consistence with
> > > pgdat->node_present_pages, which is sum of zone->present_pages.
> > >
> > > This patchset has only been tested on x86_64 with nobootmem.c. So need
> > > help to test this patchset on machines:
> > > 1) use bootmem.c
> > If only x86_32 use bootmem.c instead of nobootmem.c? How could I confirm it?
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 	Thanks for review this patch set.
> 	Currently x86/x86_64/Sparc have been converted to use nobootmem.c,
> and other Arches still use bootmem.c. So need to test it on other Arches,
> such as ARM etc. Yesterday we have tested it patchset on an Itanium platform,
> so bootmem.c should work as expected too.

Hi Jiang,

If there are any codes changed in x86/x86_64  to meet nobootmem.c logic? 
I mean if remove
config NO_BOOTMEM
       def_bool y
in arch/x86/Kconfig, whether x86/x86_64 can take advantage of bootmem.c 
or not.

Regards,
Jaegeuk

> 	Thanks!
> 	Gerry

--
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/