On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 08:27:44PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 06/26/2018 11:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:46:35AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > + if (!arrays)
> > > > > + return NULL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < max_array_num; i++) {
> > > > So we are getting a ton of memory here just to free it up a bit later.
> > > > Why doesn't get_from_free_page_list get the pages from free list for us?
> > > > We could also avoid the 1st allocation then - just build a list
> > > > of these.
> > > That wouldn't be a good choice for us. If we check how the regular
> > > allocation works, there are many many things we need to consider when pages
> > > are allocated to users.
> > > For example, we need to take care of the nr_free
> > > counter, we need to check the watermark and perform the related actions.
> > > Also the folks working on arch_alloc_page to monitor page allocation
> > > activities would get a surprise..if page allocation is allowed to work in
> > > this way.
> > >
> > mm/ code is well positioned to handle all this correctly.
>
> I'm afraid that would be a re-implementation of the alloc functions,
A re-factoring - you can share code. The main difference is locking.
> and
> that would be much more complex than what we have. I think your idea of
> passing a list of pages is better.
>
> Best,
> Wei
How much memory is this allocating anyway?
--
MST
