On 03/22/2013 03:12 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 03/14/2013 10:50 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> +static inline bool mapping_can_have_hugepages(struct address_space *m)
>>> +{
>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE)) {
>>> + gfp_t gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_mask(m);
>>> + return !!(gfp_mask & __GFP_COMP);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>>
>> I did a quick search in all your patches and don't see __GFP_COMP
>> getting _set_ anywhere. Am I missing something?
>
> __GFP_COMP is part of GFP_TRANSHUGE. We set it for ramfs in patch 20/30.
That's a bit non-obvious. For a casual observer, it _seems_ like you
should just be setting and checking GFP_TRANSHUGE directly. It looks
like you were having some problems with __GFP_MOVABLE and masked it out
of GFP_TRANSHUGE and that has cascaded over to _this_ check.
I _think_ the right thing to do is add a comment up there in
mapping_can_have_hugepages() that does (GFP_TRANSHUGE & ~__GFP_MOVABLE),
and adds a TODO in the code and patch comments to clean it up once
ramfs_get_inode() gets fixed up too.
--
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>