Dave Hansen wrote: > On 05/11/2013 06:23 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > ramfs is the most simple fs from page cache point of view. Let's start > > transparent huge page cache enabling here. > > > > For now we allocate only non-movable huge page. ramfs pages cannot be > > moved yet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/ramfs/inode.c | 6 +++++- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ramfs/inode.c b/fs/ramfs/inode.c > > index c24f1e1..54d69c7 100644 > > --- a/fs/ramfs/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/ramfs/inode.c > > @@ -61,7 +61,11 @@ struct inode *ramfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, > > inode_init_owner(inode, dir, mode); > > inode->i_mapping->a_ops = &ramfs_aops; > > inode->i_mapping->backing_dev_info = &ramfs_backing_dev_info; > > - mapping_set_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping, GFP_HIGHUSER); > > + /* > > + * TODO: make ramfs pages movable > > + */ > > + mapping_set_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping, > > + GFP_TRANSHUGE & ~__GFP_MOVABLE); > > So, before these patches, ramfs was movable. Now, even on architectures > or configurations that have no chance of using THP-pagecache, ramfs > pages are no longer movable. Right? No, it wasn't movable. GFP_HIGHUSER is not GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE (yeah, names of gfp constants could be more consistent). ramfs should be fixed to use movable pages, but it's outside the scope of the patchset. See more details: http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/2/720 -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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>