Re: [PATCH] x86-64: improve e820_search_gap()

[H. Peter Anvin]

Jan Beulich wrote:
> Impact: bug fix
> 
> Blindly putting the gap close after max_pfn is in conflict with that
> same memory range potentially being used by hotplugged memory.
> 
> Also, make the function static to ensure there are no other users that
> could depend on the previous behavior regarding the way start_addr gets
> specified.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 

So blindly locate it somewhere else?  How is that inherently better?
Wouldn't a machine with hotplug memory (which doesn't bother advertising
that fact so we can reserve the address space) be just as likely to use
a sparse memory space, since one can hardly expect the hardware to pack
the space (packing in hardware is why PCs generally have a
mostly-contiguous RAM space) when the memory is hotplugged?

I think I'm missing something fundamental...

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/