> Hi Ingo,
>
>
>
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
>
> > *
akpm@linux-foundation.org <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Subject: bootmem: node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
> >> From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
> >>
> >> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address
> >> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node
> >> configurations.
> >
> > this patch does not fix the bug Yinghai's (now dropped) patches solved:
> > reserve_early() allocations. So NAK until the full problem has been
> > sorted out ...
>
> Okay, NAK on -mm and -x86 for sure. The patch was meant for mainline
> where there is no need for free_bootmem() going across nodes, right?
>
> But I still object to the way Yinghai implemented it.
> free_bootmem_core() should not be twisted like this.
>
> How about the following (untested, even uncompiled, but you should get
> the idea) proposal which would replace the patch discussed in this
> thread:
>
> --- tree-linus.orig/mm/bootmem.c
> +++ tree-linus/mm/bootmem.c
> @@ -421,7 +421,25 @@ int __init reserve_bootmem(unsigned long
>
>
> void __init free_bootmem(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
> {
> - free_bootmem_core(NODE_DATA(0)->bdata, addr, size);
> + bootmem_data_t *bdata;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(bdata, &bdata_list, list) {
> + unsigned long remainder = 0;
>
> +
> + if (addr < bdata->node_boot_start)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (PFN_DOWN(addr + size) > bdata->node_low_pfn)
> + remainder = PFN_DOWN(addr + size) - bdata->node_low_pfn;
> +
> + size -= PFN_PHYS(remainder);
>
> + free_bootmem_core(bdata, addr, size)
> +
> + if (!remainder)
> + break;
> +
> + addr = PFN_PHYS(bdata->node_low_pfn + 1);
> + }
>
> }
>
> unsigned long __init free_all_bootmem(void)
