Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes

[H. Peter Anvin]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> Would it be possible to restructure things to move kmalloc init to 
> before IRQ init as well? We have a couple of uglinesses there too.
> 
> Conceptually, memory should be the first thing set up in general, in 
> a kernel. It does not need IRQs, timers, the scheduler or any of the 
> IO facilities and abstractions. All of them need memory though - and 
> as Linux scales to more and more hardware via the same single image, 
> so will we get more and more dynamic concepts like cpumask_var_t and 
> sparse-irqs, which want to allocate very early.
> 
> setup_arch() is one huge function that sets up all architecture 
> details at once - but if we split a separate setup_arch_mem() out of 
> it, and left the rest in setup_arch (and moved it further down), we 
> could remove much of bootmem (especially the ugly uses).
> 
> This might even be doable realistically, and we could thus librarize 
> bootmem and eliminate it from x86 at least. Perhaps.
> 

The only thing that might make sense to set up before memory might be
exceptions (as opposed to interrupts), but both of those should be
doable very very early.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/