On 06/21/2012 03:04 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
(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 ?
It's less intrusive, because it is independent of the cache being used
and doesn't modify the cache code. That's one of the things I tried to
achieve in this last patchset.
If the slab guys think this change in the slab is acceptable, and better
than in __free_pages, I'd be happy to change back to it. But then, I'd
like to to the same for the allocation.
--
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>