From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 11:07:07 -0800 > 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... Agree on NUMA and naming. I'm a bit surprised that 95% of drivers have this helper called "reserved" (one of the reasons why I finished with this variant). Let's say, if anybody else will vote for "reusable", I'll pick it for v3. > 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. Sounds fine, this will make code more elegant. Will publish v3 soon. Thanks, Al
