On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 05:46:29PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:08:54AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:47:22PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > > We can't use existing hugepage allocation functions to allocate hugepage
> > > for page migration, because page migration can happen asynchronously with
> > > the running processes and page migration users should call the allocation
> > > function with physical addresses (not virtual addresses) as arguments.
> >
> > I looked through this patch and didn't see anything bad. Some more
> > eyes familiar with hugepages would be good though.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Since there are now so many different allocation functions some
> > comments on when they should be used may be useful too
>
> OK. How about this?
>
> +/*
> + * This allocation function is useful in the context where vma is irrelevant.
> + * E.g. soft-offlining uses this function because it only cares physical
> + * address of error page.
> + */
Looks good thanks.
> +struct page *alloc_huge_page_node(struct hstate *h, int nid)
> +{
>
> BTW, I don't like this function name very much.
> Since the most significant difference of this function to alloc_huge_page()
> is lack of vma argument, so I'm going to change the name to
> alloc_huge_page_no_vma_node() in the next version if it is no problem.
>
> Or, since the postfix like "_no_vma" is verbose, I think it might be
> a good idea to rename present alloc_huge_page() to alloc_huge_page_vma().
> Is this worthwhile?
Yes, in a separate patch
-Andi
--
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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>