On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 09:14 -0600, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 01:29 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I'm travelling at the moment so apologies that I have not followed up on
> > this. My problem is still the same with the patch - it changes more
> > headers than is necessary and it is sparsemem specific. At minimum, try
> > the suggestion of
> >
> > if (!early_pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> > pfn = ALIGN(pfn + MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES, MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES) - 1;
> > continue;
> > }
>
> Sorry I didn't catch this until v2...
>
> Is that ALIGN() correct? If pfn=3, then it would expand to:
>
> (3+MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES+MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES-1) & ~(MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES-1)
>
> You would end up skipping the current MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES area, and then
> one _extra_ because ALIGN() aligns up, and you're adding
> MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES too. It doesn't matter unless you run in to a
> !early_valid_pfn() in the middle of a MAX_ORDER area, I guess.
>
> I think this would work, plus be a bit smaller:
>
> pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES) - 1;
>
Dave,
I see your point about "rounding-up". But, I favor the way Mel
suggested it. It more clearly shows the intent, which is to move up by
MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES. The "pfn+1" may suggest that there is some
significance to the next pfn, but there is not.
I find Mel's way easier to understand.
Mike Y
--
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>