KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:40:52 +0200 (CEST)
moreau francis <francis_moreau2000@xxxxxxxx> wrote:becasue memory map from e820(x86) or efi(ia64) are registered to iomem_resource,BTW, ioresouce information (see kernel/resouce.c)well actually you show that to get a really simple information, ie does
[kamezawa@aworks Development]$ cat /proc/iomem | grep RAM
00000000-0009fbff : System RAM
000a0000-000bffff : Video RAM area
00100000-2dfeffff : System RAM
is not enough ?
a page exist ?, we need to parse some kernel data structures like ioresource (which is, IMHO, hackish) or duplicate in each architecture
some data to keep track of existing pages.
we should avoid duplicates that information. kdump and memory hotplug uses
this information. (memory hotplug updates this iomem_resource.)
Implementing "page_is_exist" function based on ioresouce is one of generic
and rubust way to go, I think.
(if performance of list walking is problem, enhancing ioresouce code is
Why not implementing page_exist() by simply using mem_map ? When
allocating mem_map, we can just fill it with a special value. And
then when registering memory area, we clear this special value with
the "reserved" value. Hence for flatmem model, we can have:
#define page_exist(pfn) (mem_map[pfn] != SPECIAL_VALUE)
and it should work for sparsemem too and other models that will use
Another point, is page_exist() going to replace page_valid() ?
I mean page_exist() is going to be something more accurate than
page_valid(). All tests on page_valid() _only_ will be fine to test
page_exist(). But all tests such:
if (page_valid(x) && page_is_ram(x))
can be replaced by
So, again, why not simply improving page_valid() definition rather
than introduce a new service ?