[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1157125420.21733.28.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:43:40 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
akpm@...l.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, frankeh@...son.ibm.com,
rhim@...gateh.edu
Subject: Re: [patch 1/9] Guest page hinting: unused / free pages.
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 08:33 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > +++ linux-2.6-patched/mm/page_alloc.c 2006-09-01 12:49:35.000000000
> > +0200
> > @@ -515,6 +515,7 @@ static void __free_pages_ok(struct page
> > reserved += free_pages_check(page + i);
> > if (reserved)
> > return;
> > + page_set_unused(page, order);
> >
> > kernel_map_pages(page, 1 << order, 0);
> > local_irq_save(flags);
>
> Do these have anything in common with arch_free_page()? I thought
> marking the pages as being "unused by the kernel" was the whole idea of
> having that hook.
This question did come up already. arch_free_page() is done before the
PageReserved() check so it isn't suitable for stable/unused state
transitions. You can argue that arch_free_page() should be moved but who
knows what the architecture defined function is supposed to do?
page_set_stable/page_set_unused on the other hand have a clearly defined
meaning.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
Martin Schwidefsky
Linux for zSeries Development & Services
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists