(2012/06/21 17:13), Glauber Costa wrote:
On 06/21/2012 12:04 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 6092f33..fdec73e 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -698,8 +698,10 @@ static bool free_pages_prepare(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
if (PageAnon(page))
page->mapping = NULL;
- for (i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++)
+ for (i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++) {
+ __ClearPageSlab(page + i);
bad += free_pages_check(page + i);
+ }
if (bad)
return false;
@@ -2561,6 +2563,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_zeroed_page);
void __free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
{
if (put_page_testzero(page)) {
+ __ClearPageSlab(page);
if (order == 0)
free_hot_cold_page(page, 0);
else
These are called from a number of different places that has nothing to do
with slab so it's certainly out of place here. Is there really no
alternative way of doing this?
Well, if the requirement is that we must handle this from the page allocator, how else should I know if I must call the corresponding free functions ?
Also note that other bits are tested inside the page allocator as well, such as MLock.
I saw no other way, but if you have suggestions, I'd be open to try them, of course.
I'm sorry I don't understand the logic enough well.
Why check in __free_pages() is better than check in callers of slab.c/slub.c ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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>