Re: [PATCH] no buddy bitmap patch : intro and includes [0/2]

From: Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA
Date: Thu Oct 07 2004 - 20:02:37 EST



Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>>What was the purpose behind this, again? Sorry, has been too long since
>>>>I last looked.

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 08:03, Tolentino, Matthew E wrote:

For one, it avoids the otherwise requisite resizing of the bitmaps=20
during memory hotplug operations...


>> Dave McCracken wrote:
The memory allocator bitmaps are the main remaining reason we need the
concept of linear memory. If we can get rid of them, it's one step closer
to managing memory as a set of sections.

>>--Dave Hansen <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote (on Thursday, October 07, 2004 08:39:38 -0700)
It also simplifies the nonlinear implementation. The whole reason we
had the lpfn (Linear) stuff was so that the bitmaps could represent a
sparse physical address space in a much more linear fashion. With no
bitmaps, this isn't an issue, and gets rid of a lot of code, and a
*huge* source of bugs where lpfns and pfns are confused for each other.


Makese sense on both counts. Would be nice to add the justification to the changelog ;-)


It seems all I should answer is already answered.
Thank you all.

I'll add the purpose to the changelog.

Kame <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

M.


-
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/