Messages in this thread | | | From | "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V4] mm/thp: Allocate transparent hugepages on local node | Date | Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:07:18 +0530 |
| |
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> writes:
> On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold. >> >> That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it? Copied from >> alloc_pages_vma(). "vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem" would be better. >> >> And it should tell us whether mmap_sem required a down_read or a >> down_write. What purpose is it serving? > > This is already said for mmap_sem further above this comment line, which > should be just deleted (and from alloc_hugepage_vma comment too). > >>> + * >>> + */ >>> +struct page *alloc_hugepage_vma(gfp_t gfp, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>> + unsigned long addr, int order) >> >> This pointlessly bloats the kernel if CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=n? >> >> >> >> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c~mm-thp-allocate-transparent-hugepages-on-local-node-fix >> +++ a/mm/mempolicy.c > > How about this cleanup on top? I'm not fully decided on the GFP_TRANSHUGE test. > This is potentially false positive, although I doubt anything else uses the same > gfp mask bits.
IMHO I found that to be more complex.
> > Should "hugepage" be extra bool parameter instead? Should I #ifdef the parameter > only for CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE, or is it not worth the ugliness? >
I guess if we really want to consolidate both the functions, we should try the above, without all those #ifdef. It is just one extra arg. But then is the reason to consolidate that strong ?
-aneesh
| |