Re: [RFC PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq

Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:40:33 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

@@ -987,6 +988,8 @@ void __init mem_init(void)

set_highmem_pages_init();

+ after_bootmem = 1;
this hack can go away once we have a proper percpu_alloc() that can be
used early enough.
where is that fancy patch? current percpu_alloc(), will keep big
pointer in array..., instead of put that pointer in percpu_area

64bit has that after_bootmem already.
or at least introduce a "bootmem agnostic" allocator instead of
open-coding the after_bootmem flag.

Something like:

early_kzalloc()

?

Andrew, any preferences?

My mind reading ain't what it was, and this after_bootmem flag is
write-only in this patch.

So what's all this about?

if i use alloc_bootmem to get some memory, and later after_bootmem, can I use kfree to free it?

YH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [RFC PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq
    ... pointer in array..., instead of put that pointer in percpu_area ... open-coding the after_bootmem flag. ... Andrew, any preferences? ... My mind reading ain't what it was, and this after_bootmem flag is ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [RFC PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq
    ... pointer in array..., instead of put that pointer in percpu_area ... open-coding the after_bootmem flag. ... Andrew, any preferences? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [RFC PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq
    ... pointer in array..., instead of put that pointer in percpu_area ... open-coding the after_bootmem flag. ... Andrew, any preferences? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [RFC PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq
    ... Ingo Molnar wrote: ... pointer in array..., instead of put that pointer in percpu_area ... open-coding the after_bootmem flag. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [patch] avoid kmemcheck warning in epoll
    ... On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: ... rb_set_parentaccesses node's pointer in its code. ... The warning is harmless since the following rb-tree node ... Is epoll the only rbtree-using code which exhibits this problem? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)