Re: discontiguous memory platforms
Daniel Phillips (email@example.com)
Wed, 1 May 2002 16:08:11 +0200
On Thursday 02 May 2002 16:00, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Just to throw in an alternative: On m68k we map currently everything
> > > together into a single virtual area. This means the virtual<->physical
> > > conversion is a bit more expensive and mem_map is simply indexed by the
> > > the virtual address.
> > Are you talking about mm_ptov and friends here? What are the loops for?
> It simply searches through all memory nodes, it's not really efficient.
> > Could you please describe the most extreme case of physical discontiguity
> > you're handling?
> I can't assume anything. I'm thinking about calculating the table
> dynamically and patching the kernel at bootup, we are already doing
> something similiar in the Amiga/ppc kernel.
Maybe this is a good place to try out a hash table variant of
config_nonlinear. It's got to be more efficient than searching all the
nodes, don't you think?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/