From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757390AbcK2MgE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 29 Nov 2016 07:36:04 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:58272 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1755346AbcK2Mf4 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 29 Nov 2016 07:35:56 -0500
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:35:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Babu Moger <babu.moger@oracle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Ajust lockdep static allocations for sparc
Message-ID: <20161129123546.GM3174@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1475004808-91920-1-git-send-email-babu.moger@oracle.com>
 <CAMuHMdU13YdzoM4zTaiUvhzbgSVGeJgn6k7nyo2RayURiezK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161129114103.GE3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMuHMdWZ=1F-aL7K5YvPx58C8Cqy19fHqUGhVqVewTvXc5Z5-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161129122907.GH3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161129122907.GH3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:29:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > BTW, is there any particular reason these huge arrays are in BSS, and not
> > allocated dynamically? That would solve my problems as well...
> 
> Is there a memory allocator available before _any_ locks are used, and
> that itself also doesn't use locks?

And if that is, the platform could use that to allocate .bss, no?