[PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v2
kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com
Mon Jul 19 20:04:40 EDT 2010
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:18:31 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim at gmail.com> wrote:
> Kukjin reported oops happen while he change min_free_kbytes
> It happen by memory map on sparsemem.
> The system has a memory map following as.
> section 0 section 1 section 2
> 0x20000000-0x25000000, 0x40000000-0x50000000, 0x50000000-0x58000000
> SECTION_SIZE_BITS 28(256M)
> It means section 0 is an incompletely filled section.
> Nontheless, current pfn_valid of sparsemem checks pfn loosely.
> It checks only mem_section's validation but ARM can free mem_map on hole
> to save memory space. So in above case, pfn on 0x25000000 can pass pfn_valid's
> validation check. It's not what we want.
> We can match section size to smallest valid size.(ex, above case, 16M)
> But Russell doesn't like it due to mem_section's memory overhead with different
> configuration(ex, 512K section).
> I tried to add valid pfn range in mem_section but everyone doesn't like it
> due to size overhead. This patch is suggested by KAMEZAWA-san.
> I just fixed compile error and change some naming.
> This patch registers address of mem_section to memmap itself's page struct's
> pg->private field. This means the page is used for memmap of the section.
> Otherwise, the page is used for other purpose and memmap has a hole.
> This patch is based on mmotm-2010-07-01-12-19.
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com>
> Reported-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at samsung.com>
Thank you for working on this. I myself like this solution.
I think ARM guys can make this default later (after rc period ?)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel