On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 15:42:29 +0000 Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:11:23 +0000 Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > > + * dev_page_is_reserved - check whether a page can be reused for network Rx > > > + * @page: the page to test > > > + * > > > + * A page shouldn't be considered for reusing/recycling if it was allocated > > > + * under memory pressure or at a distant memory node. > > > + * > > > + * Returns true if this page should be returned to page allocator, false > > > + * otherwise. > > > + */ > > > +static inline bool dev_page_is_reserved(const struct page *page) > > > > Am I the only one who feels like "reusable" is a better term than > > "reserved". > > I thought about it, but this will need to inverse the conditions in > most of the drivers. I decided to keep it as it is. > I can redo if "reusable" is preferred. Naming is hard. As long as the condition is not a double negative it reads fine to me, but that's probably personal preference. The thing that doesn't sit well is the fact that there is nothing "reserved" about a page from another NUMA node.. But again, if nobody +1s this it's whatever... That said can we move the likely()/unlikely() into the helper itself? People on the internet may say otherwise but according to my tests using __builtin_expect() on a return value of a static inline helper works just fine.
