Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261853AbVEPUTR (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2005 16:19:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261850AbVEPUQk (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2005 16:16:40 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:15238 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261854AbVEPUO0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2005 16:14:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Factor in buddy allocator alignment requirements in node memory alignment From: Dave Hansen To: christoph Cc: linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:14:11 -0700 Message-Id: <1116274451.1005.106.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 956 Lines: 21 On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 12:05 -0700, christoph wrote: > Memory for nodes on i386 is currently aligned on 2 MB boundaries. > However, the buddy allocator needs pages to be aligned on > PAGE_SIZE << MAX_ORDER which is 8MB if MAX_ORDER = 11. Why do you need this? Are you planning on allowing NUMA KVA remap pages to be handed over to the buddy allocator? That would be a major departure from what we do now, and I'd be very interested in seeing how that is implemented before a infrastructure for it goes in. BTW, how sure are you that those alignment restrictions really still exist? Some of them went away when we got rid of the buddy bitmap. You might want to check that you definitely need this. -- Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/