Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:49:04 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: Matt Tolentino <metolent@cs.vt.edu>, akpm@osdl.org, discuss@x86-64.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthew.e.tolentino@intel.com
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [patch 3/3] add x86-64 support for memory hot-add II
Message-ID: <20051209174904.GA30117@brahms.suse.de>
References: <200512091523.jB9FNn5J006697@ap1.cs.vt.edu> <20051209173249.GA54033@muc.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051209173249.GA54033@muc.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1153
Lines: 34

> In general SRAT has a hotplug memory bit so it's possible
> to predict how much memory there will be in advance. Since
> the overhead of the kernel page tables should be very
> low I would prefer if you just used instead.
> 
> (i.e. instead of extending the kernel mapping preallocate
> the direct mapping and just clear the P bits) 
> 
> That should be much simpler.

Looking at it again - accessing SRAT currently relies on the 
direct mapping already. Untangling that would be possible,
but require an bt_ioremap which would also add lots of code.

Ok I retract that objection. I guess your way is better
for now.

In addition to the __cpuinit comment

+if (after_bootmem) spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);

Conditional locking is evil. spinlocking in the boot
case should just work too I think.

The EXPORTs should be probably EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.

With these changes it would look ok for me.

-Andi
-
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/