Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:10:15 +0900 | From | Yasunori Goto <> | Subject | Re: [Patch:003/004] wait_table and zonelist initializing for memory hotadd (wait_table initialization) |
| |
> On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 20:01 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > static inline unsigned long wait_table_size(unsigned long pages) > > { > > unsigned long size = 1; > > @@ -1803,6 +1804,17 @@ static inline unsigned long wait_table_s > > > > return max(size, 4UL); > > } > > +#else > > +/* > > + * XXX: Because zone size might be changed by hot-add, > > + * It is hard to determin suitable size for wait_table as > > traditional. > > + * So, we use maximum size now. > > + */ > > +static inline unsigned long wait_table_size(unsigned long pages) > > +{ > > + return 4096UL; > > +} > > +#endif > > Sorry for the slow response. My IBM email is temporarily dead. > > Couple of things. > > First, is there anything useful that prepending UL to the constants does > to the functions? It ends up looking a little messy to me.
I would like to show that it is max size of original wait_table_size(). Original one uses 4096UL for it.
> Also, I thought you were going to put a big fat comment on there about > doing it correctly in the future. It would also be nice to quantify the > wasted space in terms of bytes, just so that people get a feel for it.
Hmmm. Ok.
> Oh, and wait_table_size() needs a unit. wait_table_size_bytes() sounds > like a winner to me.
This size doesn't mean bytes. It is hash table entry size. So, wait_table_hash_size() or wait_table_entry_size() might be better.
Thanks.
-- Yasunori Goto
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |