On Thu 16-08-12 18:34:59, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:25:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 16-08-12 17:09:54, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 05:26:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I guess the cleanest way is to hook into dequeue_huge_page_node and add > > > > something like arch_clear_hugepage_flags. > > > > > > I hooked into enqueue_huge_page instead, but how about something like this?: > > > > Do you have any specific reason for that? enqueue_huge_page is called on > > pages which potentially never get used so isn't that wasting a bit? > > Not that it would be wrong I was just thinking why shouldn't we do it > > when the page is actualy going to be used for sure. > > I just did it that way to match the flag clearing for normal pages. I can > move it into dequeue if you think it's worthwhile but in the worst case it > just adds a clear_bit call, so I doubt it's measurable. I do not have a strong opinion on that but the flags come in cleared when they are freshly allocated (gather_surplus_pages) so then it would be more appropriate in free_huge_page when enqueue_huge_page is called. But this is just a nit. > > Will -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>