On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 14:28 +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:21:05 +0200, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > +struct page *__alloc_pages_exact(gfp_t gfp_mask, size_t size)
> > {
> > unsigned int order = get_order(size);
> > - unsigned long addr;
> > + struct page *page;
> > - addr = __get_free_pages(gfp_mask, order);
> > - if (addr) {
> > - unsigned long alloc_end = addr + (PAGE_SIZE << order);
> > - unsigned long used = addr + PAGE_ALIGN(size);
> > + page = alloc_pages(gfp_mask, order);
> > + if (page) {
> > + struct page *alloc_end = page + (1 << order);
> > + struct page *used = page + PAGE_ALIGN(size)/PAGE_SIZE;
> > - split_page(virt_to_page((void *)addr), order);
> > + split_page(page, order);
> > while (used < alloc_end) {
> > - free_page(used);
> > - used += PAGE_SIZE;
> > + __free_page(used);
> > + used++;
> > }
>
> Have you thought about moving this loop to a separate function, ie.
> _free_page_range(start, end)? I'm asking because this loop appears
> in two places and my CMA would also benefit from such a function.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Were you thinking start/end 'struct
page's as arguments?
-- Dave
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>