Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Mon May 25 2009 - 01:26:22 EST
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 04:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Would it be possible to restructure things to move kmalloc init to
> before IRQ init as well? We have a couple of uglinesses there too.
> Conceptually, memory should be the first thing set up in general, in
> a kernel. It does not need IRQs, timers, the scheduler or any of the
> IO facilities and abstractions. All of them need memory though - and
> as Linux scales to more and more hardware via the same single image,
> so will we get more and more dynamic concepts like cpumask_var_t and
> sparse-irqs, which want to allocate very early.
> setup_arch() is one huge function that sets up all architecture
> details at once - but if we split a separate setup_arch_mem() out of
> it, and left the rest in setup_arch (and moved it further down), we
> could remove much of bootmem (especially the ugly uses).
> This might even be doable realistically, and we could thus librarize
> bootmem and eliminate it from x86 at least. Perhaps.
Yup, see my earlier email. Archs like x86 and powerpc already have a low
level allocator they can use to allocate the mem_map etc... so bootmem
really becomes redundant.
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/