On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 07:23:59PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Joonsoo Kim
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 05:37:38PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim(a)lge.com>
>> > Please refer my previous attempt to add a new zone, ZONE_CMA.
>> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/12/84
>> > It salvages a bit from SECTION_WIDTH by increasing section size.
>> > Similarly, I guess we can reduce NODE_WIDTH if needed although
>> > it could cause to reduce maximum node size.
>> Dave pointed out to me that LAST__PID_SHIFT might be a better
>> candidate to reduce to 7 bits. That field is for storing pids which
>> are already bigger than 8 bits. If it is relying on the fact that
>> pids don't rollover very often then likely the impact of 7-bits
>> instead of 8 will be minimal.
> Hmm... I'm not sure it's possible or not, but, it looks not a general
> solution. It will solve your problem because you are using 64 bit arch
> but other 32 bit archs can't get the benefit.
This is where the ZONE_CMA and ZONE_DEVICE efforts diverge.
ZONE_DEVICE is meant to enable DMA access to hundreds of gigagbytes of
persistent memory. A 64-bit-only limitation for ZONE_DEVICE is
Yes, but, my point is that if someone need another zone like as
ZONE_CMA, they couldn't get the benefit from this change. They need to
re-investigate what bits they can reduce and need to re-do all things.
If it is implemented more generally at this time, it can relieve their
burden and less churn the code. It would be helpful for maintainability.