On 01/26/2015 01:13 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:41:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold. >> > >> > That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it? Copied from >> > alloc_pages_vma(). "vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem" would be better. >> > >> > And it should tell us whether mmap_sem required a down_read or a >> > down_write. What purpose is it serving? >> >> This is already said for mmap_sem further above this comment line, which >> should be just deleted (and from alloc_hugepage_vma comment too). >> >> >> + * >> >> + */ >> >> +struct page *alloc_hugepage_vma(gfp_t gfp, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >> >> + unsigned long addr, int order) >> > >> > This pointlessly bloats the kernel if CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=n? >> > >> > >> > >> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c~mm-thp-allocate-transparent-hugepages-on-local-node-fix >> > +++ a/mm/mempolicy.c >> >> How about this cleanup on top? I'm not fully decided on the GFP_TRANSHUGE test. >> This is potentially false positive, although I doubt anything else uses the same >> gfp mask bits. > > This info on gfp mask should be in commit message. Right. Wanted to get some consensus first. > And what about WARN_ON_ONCE() if we the matching bits with > !TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE? Hmm, can't say I like that, but could work. >> >> Should "hugepage" be extra bool parameter instead? Should I #ifdef the parameter >> only for CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE, or is it not worth the ugliness? > > Do we have spare gfp bit? ;) Seems we have defined 24 out of 32. Not too much to spare, and the use case here is very narrow. -- 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>