[PATCH] Tight check of pfn_valid on sparsemem - v3
Balbir Singh
balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Sun Jul 25 13:03:08 EDT 2010
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim at gmail.com> wrote:
> Changelog since v2
> o Change some function names
> o Remove mark_memmap_hole in memmap bring up
> o Change CONFIG_SPARSEMEM with CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
>
> I have a plan following as after this patch is acked.
>
> TODO:
> 1) expand pfn_valid to FALTMEM in ARM
> I think we can enhance pfn_valid of FLATMEM in ARM.
> Now it is doing binary search and it's expesive.
> First of all, After we merge this patch, I expand it to FALTMEM of ARM.
>
> 2) remove memmap_valid_within
> We can remove memmap_valid_within by strict pfn_valid's tight check.
>
> 3) Optimize hole check in sparsemem
> In case of spasemem, we can optimize pfn_valid through defining new flag
> like SECTION_HAS_HOLE of hole mem_section.
>
Is there an assumption somewhere that assumes that page->private will
always have MEMMAP_HOLE set when the pfn is invalid, independent of
the context in which it is invoked? BTW, I'd also recommend moving
over to using set_page_private() and page_private() wrappers (makes
the code easier to search)
Balbir
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list