Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?)

2018-07-12 Thread Yoshinori Sato
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at

Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?)

2018-07-12 Thread Yoshinori Sato
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at

Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?)

2018-07-02 Thread Yoshinori Sato
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at

Re: h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?)

2018-07-02 Thread Yoshinori Sato
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/) > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at

h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?)

2018-07-01 Thread Mike Rapoport
(added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/) On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM

h8300: BUG: Bad page state in process swapper (was: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?)

2018-07-01 Thread Mike Rapoport
(added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/) On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am wondering why do we

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am wondering why do we

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Rob Herring
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Rob Herring
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Rob Herring
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Rob Herring
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
Hi, On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
Hi, On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 27-06-18 13:11:44, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 27-06-18 13:11:44, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > > already moved to nobootmem. Is

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-27 Thread Mike Rapoport
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-25 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 25-06-18 10:09:41, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-25 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 25-06-18 10:09:41, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > > cannot or this is just a

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-25 Thread Rob Herring
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > cannot or this is just a matter of work? Just because no one has done the work. I did

Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-25 Thread Rob Herring
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > Hi, > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others > cannot or this is just a matter of work? Just because no one has done the work. I did

why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-25 Thread Michal Hocko
Hi, I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others cannot or this is just a matter of work? Btw. what really needs to be done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done in that

why do we still need bootmem allocator?

2018-06-25 Thread Michal Hocko
Hi, I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others cannot or this is just a matter of work? Btw. what really needs to be done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done in that