On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:00:32PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2015-11-09 16:53 GMT+09:00 Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On (11/09/15 16:23), Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > [..]
> >> +static inline int page_count(struct page *page)
> >> +{
> >> + return atomic_read(&compound_head(page)->_count);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void set_page_count(struct page *page, int v)
> >> +{
> >> + atomic_set(&page->_count, v);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Setup the page count before being freed into the page allocator for
> >> + * the first time (boot or memory hotplug)
> >> + */
> >> +static inline void init_page_count(struct page *page)
> >> +{
> >> + set_page_count(page, 1);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void page_ref_add(struct page *page, int nr)
> >> +{
> >> + atomic_add(nr, &page->_count);
> >> +}
> >
> > Since page_ref_FOO wrappers operate with page->_count and there
> > are already page_count()/set_page_count()/etc. may be name new
> > wrappers in page_count_FOO() manner?
>
> Hello,
>
> I used that page_count_ before but change my mind.
> I think that ref is more relevant to this operation.
> Perhaps, it'd be better to change page_count()/set_page_count()
> to page_ref()/set_page_ref().
What about get_page() vs. page_cache_get() and put_page() vs.
page_cache_release()? Two different helpers for the same thing is annyoing
me for some time (plus PAGE_SIZE vs. PAGE_CACHE_SIZE, etc.).
If you want coherent API you might want to get them consitent too.
> FYI, some functions such as page_(un)freeze_refs uses ref. :)
--
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>