>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.
It's just my mistake, sorry!
BTW, I'm testing the v3 patch based on the Petr's comment, sorry for
keeping you waiting for it.
Thanks
Atsushi Kumagai
