From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993ED6B01AC for ; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 05:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:28:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] hugetlb: add allocate function for hugepage migration Message-ID: <20100705092816.GA8510@basil.fritz.box> References: <1278049646-29769-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <1278049646-29769-4-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> <20100702090854.GD12221@basil.fritz.box> <20100705084629.GC29648@spritzera.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100705084629.GC29648@spritzera.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Naoya Horiguchi Cc: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Wu Fengguang , Jun'ichi Nomura , linux-mm , LKML List-ID: On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 05:46:29PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:08:54AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:47:22PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > > We can't use existing hugepage allocation functions to allocate hugepage > > > for page migration, because page migration can happen asynchronously with > > > the running processes and page migration users should call the allocation > > > function with physical addresses (not virtual addresses) as arguments. > > > > I looked through this patch and didn't see anything bad. Some more > > eyes familiar with hugepages would be good though. > > Yes. > > > Since there are now so many different allocation functions some > > comments on when they should be used may be useful too > > OK. How about this? > > +/* > + * This allocation function is useful in the context where vma is irrelevant. > + * E.g. soft-offlining uses this function because it only cares physical > + * address of error page. > + */ Looks good thanks. > +struct page *alloc_huge_page_node(struct hstate *h, int nid) > +{ > > BTW, I don't like this function name very much. > Since the most significant difference of this function to alloc_huge_page() > is lack of vma argument, so I'm going to change the name to > alloc_huge_page_no_vma_node() in the next version if it is no problem. > > Or, since the postfix like "_no_vma" is verbose, I think it might be > a good idea to rename present alloc_huge_page() to alloc_huge_page_vma(). > Is this worthwhile? Yes, in a separate patch -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org