Re: [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V8

On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> There are differences in the zone sizes for x86_64 as the arch-specific code
> for x86_64 accounts the kernel image and the starting mem_maps as memory
> holes but the architecture-independent code accounts the memory as present.

Shouldn't this be the same for all architectures? Or to put it in other words:
why does only x86_64 account the kernel image as memory hole?
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V8
    • From: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V8
    • From: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.18-rc1: breaks boot on thinkpad x32 -- acpiphp problems?
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Sizing zones and holes in an architecture independent manner V8
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]