Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:28:16 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] hugetlb: add allocate function for hugepage migration |
| |
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.
| |