[PATCHv16 0/9] Contiguous Memory Allocator

[Marek Szyprowski]

Hello,

On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:57 AM Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:27:06 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 06 October 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > Once again I decided to post an updated version of the Contiguous Memory
> > > Allocator patches.
> > >
> > > This version provides mainly a bugfix for a very rare issue that might
> > > have changed migration type of the CMA page blocks resulting in dropping
> > > CMA features from the affected page block and causing memory allocation
> > > to fail. Also the issue reported by Dave Hansen has been fixed.
> > >
> > > This version also introduces basic support for x86 architecture, what
> > > allows wide testing on KVM/QEMU emulators and all common x86 boxes. I
> > > hope this will result in wider testing, comments and easier merging to
> > > mainline.
> >
> > Hi Marek,
> >
> > I think we need to finally get this into linux-next now, to get some
> > broader testing. Having the x86 patch definitely helps here becauses
> > it potentially exposes the code to many more testers.
> >
> > IMHO it would be good to merge the entire series into 3.2, since
> > the ARM portion fixes an important bug (double mapping of memory
> > ranges with conflicting attributes) that we've lived with for far
> > too long, but it really depends on how everyone sees the risk
> > for regressions here. If something breaks in unfixable ways before
> > the 3.2 release, we can always revert the patches and have another
> > try later.
> >
> > It's also not clear how we should merge it. Ideally the first bunch
> > would go through linux-mm, and the architecture specific patches
> > through the respective architecture trees, but there is an obvious
> > inderdependency between these sets.
> >
> > Russell, Andrew, are you both comfortable with putting the entire
> > set into linux-mm to solve this? Do you see this as 3.2 or rather
> > as 3.3 material?
> >
> 
> Russell's going to hate me, but...
> 
> I do know that he had substantial objections to at least earlier
> versions of this, and he is a guy who knows of what he speaks.

I've did my best to fix these issues. I'm still waiting for comments...

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung Poland R&D Center