On 05/22/2015 04:35 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: >> >> Thanks! >> >> > This makes a lot of sense to me. The only thing I worry about is the >> > proliferation of PageHuge(), a function call, in relatively hot paths. >> >> I've tried that (see the patch below) but it enlarged the code by almost >> 1k >> text data bss dec hex filename >> 510323 74273 44440 629036 9992c mm/built-in.o.before >> 511248 74273 44440 629961 99cc9 mm/built-in.o.after >> >> I am not sure the code size increase is worth it. Maybe we can reduce >> the check to only PageCompound(page) as huge pages are no in the page >> cache (yet). >> > > That would be a more sensible route because it also avoids exposing the > hugetlbfs destructor unnecessarily. You could maybe do test such as (PageCompound(page) && PageHuge(page)) to short-circuit the call while remaining future-proof. -- 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>