On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 03:51:56PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Hi, Mel.
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:59:57AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > ...
> > I'd have preferred to see the whole series but still...
>
> OK.
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > index 78b4bc6..a574d09 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > @@ -14,11 +14,6 @@ struct user_struct;
> > >
> > > int PageHuge(struct page *page);
> > >
> > > -static inline int is_vm_hugetlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > -{
> > > - return vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > void reset_vma_resv_huge_pages(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
> > > int hugetlb_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> > > int hugetlb_overcommit_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> > > @@ -77,11 +72,6 @@ static inline int PageHuge(struct page *page)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static inline int is_vm_hugetlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > -{
> > > - return 0;
> > > -}
> > > -
> >
> > You collapse two functions into one here and move them to another
> > header. Is there a reason why pagemap.h could not include hugetlb.h?
>
> Yes, hugetlb.h includes pagemap.h through mempolicy.h.
> I didn't make pagemap.h depend on hugetlb.h because it makes cyclic dependency
> among pagemap.h, mempolicy.h and hugetlb.h.
>
Ok, that's a good reason.
> > It adds another header dependency which is bad but moving hugetlb stuff
> > into mm.h seems bad too.
>
> I have another choice to move the definition of is_vm_hugetlb_page() into
> mm/hugetlb.c and introduce declaration of this function to pagemap.h,
> but this needed a bit ugly #ifdefs and I didn't like it.
> If putting hugetlb code in mm.h is worse, I'll take the second choice
> in the next post.
>
That would add an additional function call overhead to page table teardown
which would be very unfortunate. I still am not very keen on moving hugetlb
code to mm.h though.
How about moving the definition of shared_policy under a CONFIG_NUMA
block in mm_types.h and removing the dependency between hugetlb.h and
mempolicy.h?
Does anyone else see a problem with this from a "clean" perspective?
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>