> Just curious if we still want to boost MAX_ORDER like this with 64k
> pages? Doesn't that make the MAX_ORDER block size 256MB in this case?
> Also, not quite sure what happens if memory size (a 16 MB multiple)
> does not align with a MAX_ORDER block size (a 256MB multiple in this
> case). My 'guess' is that the page allocator would not use it as it
> would not fit within the buddy system.
>
> cc'ing SPARSEMEM author Andy Whitcroft.
Yes, the MAX_ORDER should be different indeed. But can Kconfig do that ?
That is have the default value be different based on a Kconfig option ?
I don't see that ... We may have to do things differently here...
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
