lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 1/7] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory

    >
    > Looking at stuff like this, I can't help but think that a:
    >
    > #define PageOffline PageUnaccepted
    >
    > and some other renaming would be a fine idea. I get that the Offline
    > bit can be reused, but I'm not sure that the "Offline" *naming* should
    > be reused. What you're doing here is logically distinct from existing
    > offlining.

    Yes, or using a new pagetype bit to make the distinction clearer.
    Especially the function names like maybe_set_page_offline() et. Al are
    confusing IMHO. They are all about accepting unaccepted memory ... and
    should express that.

    I assume PageOffline() will be set only on the first sub-page of a
    high-order PageBuddy() page, correct?

    Then we'll have to monitor all PageOffline() users such that they can
    actually deal with PageBuddy() pages spanning *multiple* base pages for
    a PageBuddy() page. For now it's clear that if a page is PageOffline(),
    it cannot be PageBuddy() and cannot span more than one base page.

    E.g., fs/proc/kcore.c:read_kcore() assumes that PageOffline() is set on
    individual base pages.

    --
    Thanks,

    David / dhildenb

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-01-12 12:33    [W:4.136 / U:0.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site