On Friday 10 January 2014 07:53 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:13:16 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
I'll try to provide
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:13:16 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
> On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >> I'll try to provide more technical details here.
> >> As Santosh mentioned in previous
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:13:16 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
wrote:
On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
I'll try to provide more technical details here.
As Santosh mentioned
On Friday 10 January 2014 07:53 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:13:16 -0500 Santosh Shilimkar
santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
I'll try to
On 12/05/2013 10:34 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Grygorii,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:48 PM, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
+#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
+ memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align,
On 12/05/2013 10:34 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Grygorii,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:48 PM, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
+#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
+ memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align,
Grygorii,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:48 PM, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
>
>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \
> +
Hi Tejun,
>On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
>> >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \
>> >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES)
>> >
>> > Also, do
Hey,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:48:21PM +, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
> +/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
> +#define memblock_virt_alloc(x) \
> + __alloc_bootmem(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
>
> which will be transformed to
> +/* Fall back to all the existing
On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> I'll try to provide more technical details here.
>> As Santosh mentioned in previous e-mails, it's not easy to simply
>> get rid of using MAX_NUMNODES:
>> 1)
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> I'll try to provide more technical details here.
> As Santosh mentioned in previous e-mails, it's not easy to simply
> get rid of using MAX_NUMNODES:
> 1) we introduce new interface memblock_allocX
> 2) our interface
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >> +#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
> >> + memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \
> >> + BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES)
> >
> > Also, do we really
Hi Tejun,
On 12/04/2013 01:24 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:27:23PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> So we add equivalent APIs so that we can replace usage of bootmem
>> with memblock interfaces. Architectures already converted to NO_BOOTMEM
>> use these new
Hi Tejun,
On 12/04/2013 06:46 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 December 2013 11:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after
>>> this series.
Hi Tejun,
On 12/04/2013 06:46 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 11:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after
this series. Changing
Hi Tejun,
On 12/04/2013 01:24 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:27:23PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
So we add equivalent APIs so that we can replace usage of bootmem
with memblock interfaces. Architectures already converted to NO_BOOTMEM
use these new interfaces
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
+#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
+ memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \
+ BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES)
Also, do we really need this
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
I'll try to provide more technical details here.
As Santosh mentioned in previous e-mails, it's not easy to simply
get rid of using MAX_NUMNODES:
1) we introduce new interface memblock_allocX
2) our interface uses
On Thursday 05 December 2013 11:59 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
I'll try to provide more technical details here.
As Santosh mentioned in previous e-mails, it's not easy to simply
get rid of using MAX_NUMNODES:
1) we
Hey,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:48:21PM +, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
+/* Fall back to all the existing bootmem APIs */
+#define memblock_virt_alloc(x) \
+ __alloc_bootmem(x, SMP_CACHE_BYTES, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT)
which will be transformed to
+/* Fall back to all the existing
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
+#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
+ memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \
+ BOOTMEM_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE, MAX_NUMNODES)
Also, do we really need this
Grygorii,
On Thursday 05 December 2013 01:48 PM, Strashko, Grygorii wrote:
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:35:00PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
+#define memblock_virt_alloc_align(x, align) \
+ memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid(x, align, BOOTMEM_LOW_LIMIT, \
+
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 11:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after
>> this series. Changing MAX_NUMNODES to NUMA_NO_NODE is too invasive and
>> actually
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after
> this series. Changing MAX_NUMNODES to NUMA_NO_NODE is too invasive and
> actually should be done in a separate series. As commented, the best
>
On Tuesday 03 December 2013 06:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:27:23PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> So we add equivalent APIs so that we can replace usage of bootmem
>> with memblock interfaces. Architectures already converted to NO_BOOTMEM
>> use these new
On Tuesday 03 December 2013 06:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:27:23PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
So we add equivalent APIs so that we can replace usage of bootmem
with memblock interfaces. Architectures already converted to NO_BOOTMEM
use these new interfaces
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after
this series. Changing MAX_NUMNODES to NUMA_NO_NODE is too invasive and
actually should be done in a separate series. As commented, the best
time to
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 11:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after
this series. Changing MAX_NUMNODES to NUMA_NO_NODE is too invasive and
actually should
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:27:23PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> So we add equivalent APIs so that we can replace usage of bootmem
> with memblock interfaces. Architectures already converted to NO_BOOTMEM
> use these new interfaces and other which still uses bootmem, these new
> APIs
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:27:23PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
So we add equivalent APIs so that we can replace usage of bootmem
with memblock interfaces. Architectures already converted to NO_BOOTMEM
use these new interfaces and other which still uses bootmem, these new
APIs just
Introduce memblock memory allocation APIs which allow to support
PAE or LPAE extension on 32 bits archs where the physical memory start
address can be beyond 4GB. In such cases, existing bootmem APIs which
operate on 32 bit addresses won't work and needs memblock layer which
operates on 64 bit
Introduce memblock memory allocation APIs which allow to support
PAE or LPAE extension on 32 bits archs where the physical memory start
address can be beyond 4GB. In such cases, existing bootmem APIs which
operate on 32 bit addresses won't work and needs memblock layer which
operates on 64 bit
32 matches
Mail list logo