Re : Re : sparsemem usage
From: moreau francis
Date: Thu Aug 03 2006 - 05:54:00 EST
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> When allocating we do not have a problem as we simply pull a free page
> off the appropriately sizes free list. Its when freeing we have an
> issue, all the allocator has to work with is the page you are freeing.
> As MAX_ORDER is >128K we can get to the situation where all but one page
> is free. When we free that page we then need to merge this 128Kb page
> with its buddy if its free. To tell if that one is free it has to look
> at the page* for it, so that page* must also exist for this check to work.
Maybe in sparsemem code, we could mark a well chosen page as reserved if
the size of mem region is < MAX_ORDER. That way the buddy allocator
will never have to free a block of 128 KO...
> pfn_valid() will indeed say 'ok'. But that is defined only to mean that
> it is safe to look at the page* for that page. It says nothing else
> about the page itself. Pages which are reserved never get freed into
> the allocator so they are not there to be allocated so we should not be
> refering to them.
wouldn't it be safer to mark these pages as "invalid" instead of "reserved"
with a special value stored in mem_map ?
> There are tradeoffs here. The smaller the section size the better the
> internal fragmentation will be. However also the more of them there
> will be, the more space that will be used tracking them, the more
> cachelines touched with them. Also as we have seen we can't have things
> in the allocator bigger than the section size. This can constrain the
> lower bound on the section size. Finally, on 32 bit systems the overall
> number of sections is bounded by the available space in the fields
> section of the page* flags field.
thanks for that.
> If your system has 256 1Gb sections and 1 128Kb section then it could
> well make sense to have a 1GB section size or perhaps a 256Mb section
> size as you are only wasting space in the last section.
> I read that as saying there was a major gap to 3Gb and then it was
> contigious from there; but then I was guessing at the units :).
here is a updated version of my mapping, it should be clear now:
HOLE0: 0 - 3 Go
MEM1: 0xc000 0000 - 32 Mo
HOLE1: 0xc200 0000 - 224 Mo
MEM2: 0xd000 0000 - 8 Mo
HOLE2: 0xd080 0000 - 120 Mo
MEM3: 0xd800 0000 - 128 Ko
HOLE3: rest of mem
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/