Re: [PATCH 0/6] section name cleanup for mn10300

[David Howells]

Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I also thing 5/6 is wrong as it moves
> init_task befoe _edata.
> 
> Could you try to back out them one by one
> to see which one causes the extra memory waste.

Moving init_task around is the culprit.

I guess the extra page has a 50% chance of being leaked anyway, as it depends
on the alignment of the previous section.

I can probably make the kernel reclaim it by sticking a label either side of
the alignment and if they're more than a page apart, reclaim the page that
ends at the second label.

David
--
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/