From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75201C43144 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F84259B9 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:58:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 36F84259B9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754904AbeF0P6Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:58:24 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:40080 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753229AbeF0P6V (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:58:21 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5RFs6KZ107683 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:58:21 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jvd8ms561-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:58:20 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:58:18 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:58:15 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5RFwE1m26935444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:58:14 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD8911C04A; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:58:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AC811C050; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:58:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from rapoport-lnx (unknown [9.148.205.67]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:58:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 18:58:12 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18062715-4275-0000-0000-00000292879A X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18062715-4276-0000-0000-00003799F0DE Message-Id: <20180627155811.GA19182@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-27_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=590 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806270171 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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 a couple of arches > > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > > some DT changes. > > > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. > > That leaves m68k and ia64 > > And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms > which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Yeah, you are right. I've somehow excluded those that HAVE_MEMBLOCK... > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Rapoport Subject: Re: why do we still need bootmem allocator? Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 18:58:12 +0300 Message-ID: <20180627155811.GA19182@rapoport-lnx> References: <20180625140754.GB29102@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180627101144.GC4291@rapoport-lnx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/ASM HEADER FILES" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org 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 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 a couple of arches > > > recently (sh, microblaze, and h8300) mainly because I broke them with > > > some DT changes. > > > > I have a patch for alpha nearly ready. > > That leaves m68k and ia64 > > And c6x, hexagon, mips, nios2, unicore32. Those are all the platforms > which don't select NO_BOOTMEM. Yeah, you are right. I've somehow excluded those that HAVE_MEMBLOCK... > Rob > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.