On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:11:27 +0000 Atsushi Kumagai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > I have to do regression testing again for this issue and the OOM > issue reported by Vivek, so the release of v1.5.6 will be put off > to next week. > > Thanks for your patience. > > Atsushi Kumagai > > -- > From: Atsushi Kumagai <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:56:01 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH] Exclude small cycle regions wrongly. > > In bitmap initialization, if a cycle region is smaller than 8 pages > and its start_pfn is aligned to multiple of 8 pages, it will be > excluded wrongly. > > Example case: > pfn_start=0x103ff80, pfn_start_roundup=0x103ff80 > pfn_end=0x103ff84, pfn_end_round=0x103ff80 > > This case doesn't meet any conditions to set bits in > create_1st_bitmap_cyclic() and initialize_2nd_bitmap_cyclic(). > We should admit the case where pfn_start is equal to pfn_end_round > like above. Hello Kumagai-san, FWIW I cleaned up these bit operations in makedumpfile, completely removing this code and instead adding functions for efficient setting and clearing of a range of bits in a bitmap: set_bits(char *buf, size_t start, size_t end); clear_bits(char *buf, size_t start, size_t end); The whole branch is still sitting on my disk, because I based it on my other patch series (generic handling of multi-page exclusions), and there were quite some conflicts when I tried to rebase it on devel. But if you include it in v1.5.6, I will do the rebase nevertheless, so it doesn't have to wait for your decision about the other series. Can we do it that way? Petr T _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
