On 07/02/14 at 10:41am, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:26:54 +0800
> Baoquan He <bhe at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06/17/14 at 02:32am, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
> >
> > > +static void
> > > +setup_page_is_hugepage(void)
> > > +{
> > > + if (NUMBER(PG_head) != NOT_FOUND_NUMBER) {
> > > + if (NUMBER(PG_tail) == NOT_FOUND_NUMBER) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * If PG_tail is not explicitly saved, then assume
> > > + * that it immediately follows PG_head.
> > > + */
> > > + NUMBER(PG_tail) = NUMBER(PG_head) + 1;
> > > + }
> > > + } else if ((NUMBER(PG_compound) != NOT_FOUND_NUMBER)
> > > + && (info->dump_level & DL_EXCLUDE_USER_DATA)) {
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I may not understand hugepage well. I am wondering why hugepage
> > filtering can't be done if PG_compound is available.
>
> Oh, maybe I'm missing something. What do you suggest as an alternative
> way to recognize a huge page if the value of PG_compound is not known?
No, what I understood is PG_compound is known if
(NUMBER(PG_compound) != NOT_FOUND_NUMBER).
I am not sure about this.
>
> Petr Tesarik
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
