[PATCH 2/2 v2] powerpc: Enable NO_BOOTMEM

Scott Wood scottwood at freescale.com
Wed May 7 12:44:33 EST 2014

On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 19:16 -0500, Emil Medve wrote:
> Hello Scott,
> On 05/06/2014 04:49 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 13:48 -0500, Emil Medve wrote:
> >> Currently bootmem is just a wrapper around memblock. This gets rid of
> >> the wrapper code just as other ARHC(es) did: x86, arm, etc.
> >>
> >> For now only cover !NUMA systems/builds
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve at Freescale.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> v2: Acknowledge that NUMA systems/builds are not covered by this patch
> >>
> >>  arch/powerpc/Kconfig  | 3 +++
> >>  arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c | 8 ++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> index e099899..07b164b 100644
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> >> @@ -475,6 +475,9 @@ config SYS_SUPPORTS_HUGETLBFS
> >>  
> >>  source "mm/Kconfig"
> >>  
> >> +config NO_BOOTMEM
> >> +	def_bool !NUMA
> > 
> > This will allow a user to manually turn on CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM in the
> > presence of NUMA.  From the changelog it sounds like this is not what
> > you intended.
> > 
> > What are the issues with NUMA?
> Well, I don't have access to a NUMA box/board. I could enable NUMA for a
> !NUMA board but I'd feel better if I could actually test/debug on a
> relevant system

You could first test with NUMA on a non-NUMA board, and then if that
works ask the list for help testing on NUMA hardware (and various
non-Freescale non-NUMA hardware, for that matter).

Is there a specific issue that would need to be addressed to make it
work on NUMA?

> > As is, you're not getting rid of wrapper code -- only adding ifdefs.
> First, you're talking about the bootmem initialization wrapper code for
> powerpc. The actual bootmem code is in include/linux/bootmem.h and
> mm/bootmem.c. We can't remove those files as they are still used by
> other arches. Also, the word wrapper is somewhat imprecise as in powerpc
> land bootmem sort of runs on top of memblock

My point was just that the changelog says "This gets rid of wrapper
code" when it actually removes no source code, and adds configuration

> When NO_BOOTMEM is configured the mm/nobootmem.c is used that is the
> bootmem API actually re-implemented with memblock. The bootmem API is
> used in various places in the arch independent code
> This patch wants to isolate for removal the bootmem initialization code
> for powerpc and to exclude mm/bootmem.c from being built. This being the
> first step I didn't want to actually remove the code, so it will be easy
> to debug if some issues crop up. Also, people that want the use the
> bootmem code for some reason can easily do that. Once this change spends
> some time in the tree, we can actually remove the bootmem initialization
> code

Is there a plausible reason someone would "want to use the bootmem

While the "ifdef it for a while" approach is sometimes sensible, usually
it's better to just make the change rather than ifdef it.  Consider what
the code would look like if there were ifdefs for a ton of random
changes, half of which nobody ever bothered to go back and clean up
after the change got widespread testing.  Why is this patch risky enough
to warrant such an approach?  Shouldn't boot-time issues be pretty


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list