On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:26:39AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 05:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline unsigned int pindex_to_order(unsigned int pindex)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return pindex < MIGRATE_PCPTYPES ? 0 : pindex - MIGRATE_PCPTYPES + 1;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline unsigned int order_to_pindex(int migratetype, unsigned int order)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return (order == 0) ? migratetype : MIGRATE_PCPTYPES - 1 + order;
> > >
> > > Here I think that "MIGRATE_PCPTYPES + order - 1" would be easier to
> > > understand as the array is for all migratetypes, but the order is shifted?
> > >
> >
> > As in migratetypes * costly_order ? That would be excessively large.
>
> No, I just meant that instead of "MIGRATE_PCPTYPES - 1 + order" it could be
> "MIGRATE_PCPTYPES + order - 1" as we are subtracting from order, not
> migratetypes. Just made me confused a bit when seeing the code for the first
> time.
>
Oh ok. At the time I was thinking in terms of the starting offset for
the high-order and this seemed more natural but I'm ok with it either
way.
As an aside, the sizing of the array was still wrong but I corrected
it yesterday shortly after sending the mail. I also realised that the
free_pcppages_bulk was not interleaving properly and it should be fixed
now. More tests are in progress.
Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>