Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:27:36 +0800 | | From | Wu Fengguang <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [8/16] HWPOISON: Use bitmask/action code for try_to_unmap behaviour |
| |
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 05:57:25PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 08:46:41PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > try_to_unmap currently has multiple modi (migration, munlock, normal unmap) > > which are selected by magic flag variables. The logic is not very straight > > forward, because each of these flag change multiple behaviours (e.g. > > migration turns off aging, not only sets up migration ptes etc.) > > Also the different flags interact in magic ways. > > > > A later patch in this series adds another mode to try_to_unmap, so > > this becomes quickly unmanageable. > > > > Replace the different flags with a action code (migration, munlock, munmap) > > and some additional flags as modifiers (ignore mlock, ignore aging). > > This makes the logic more straight forward and allows easier extension > > to new behaviours. Change all the caller to declare what they want to > > do. > > > > This patch is supposed to be a nop in behaviour. If anyone can prove > > it is not that would be a bug. > > > > Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com > > Cc: npiggin@suse.de > > > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > > > > --- > > include/linux/rmap.h | 14 +++++++++++++- > > mm/migrate.c | 2 +- > > mm/rmap.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > > > Index: linux/include/linux/rmap.h > > =================================================================== > > --- linux.orig/include/linux/rmap.h 2009-06-03 19:36:23.000000000 +0200 > > +++ linux/include/linux/rmap.h 2009-06-03 20:39:50.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -84,7 +84,19 @@ > > * Called from mm/vmscan.c to handle paging out > > */ > > int page_referenced(struct page *, int is_locked, struct mem_cgroup *cnt); > > -int try_to_unmap(struct page *, int ignore_refs); > > + > > +enum ttu_flags { > > + TTU_UNMAP = 0, /* unmap mode */ > > + TTU_MIGRATION = 1, /* migration mode */ > > + TTU_MUNLOCK = 2, /* munlock mode */ > > + TTU_ACTION_MASK = 0xff, > > + > > + TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK = (1 << 8), /* ignore mlock */ > > + TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS = (1 << 9), /* don't age */ > > +}; > > +#define TTU_ACTION(x) ((x) & TTU_ACTION_MASK) > > I still think this is nasty and should work like Gfp flags.
I don't see big problems here.
We have page_zone() and gfp_zone(), so why not TTU_ACTION()? We could allocate one bit for each action code, but in principle they are exclusive.
|  |