From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Memory management bits in arch/*
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:50:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617135032.GA20586@mit.edu> (raw)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
[ Note: The following abstract was submitted via the Linux Plumbers
Conference website. Per the instructions that were posted for the
Maintainer's / Kernel Summit Call for Proposals[1], the proposal
should also be posted on the ksummit-discuss list, so that people
can comment on the proposal, and perhaps start a discussion before
the summit.
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/788378/
Please note that topic proposals for both the Kernel Summit and the
Maintainer's Summit are still welcome, although if you submit to the
Kernel Summit track at this point, please note that you will need to
have a registration to the Linux Plumbers Conference to attend. -- Ted ]
There is a lot of similar and duplicated code in architecture specific
bits of memory management.
For instance, most architectures have
#define PGALLOC_GFP (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO)
for allocating page table pages and many of them use similar, if not
identical, implementation of pte_alloc_one*().
But that's only the tip of the iceberg.
There are several early_alloc() or similarily called routines that do
if (slab_is_available())
return kzalloc();
else
return memblock_alloc();
Some other trivial examples are free_initmem(), free_initrd_mem()
which were nearly identical accross many architectures until very
recently.
More complex cases are per-cpu initialization, passing of memory
topology to the generic MM, reservation of crash kernel, mmap of vdso
etc. They are not really duplicated, but still are very similar in at
least several architectures.
While factoring out the common code is an obvious step to take, I
believe there is also room for refining arch <-> mm interface to avoid
adding extra HAVE_ARCH_NO_BOOTMEM^w^wWHAT_NOT and then searching for the
ways to get rid of them.
next reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-17 13:50 Theodore Ts'o [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-06-01 19:53 [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Memory management bits in arch/* Mike Rapoport
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190617135032.GA20586@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).