[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080904085809.GA6460@brain>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:58:09 +0100
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] capture pages freed during direct reclaim for
allocation by the reclaimer
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 04:00:41PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
> >
> > #ifndef __GENERATING_BOUNDS_H
> > @@ -208,6 +211,9 @@ __PAGEFLAG(SlubDebug, slub_debug)
> > */
> > TESTPAGEFLAG(Writeback, writeback) TESTSCFLAG(Writeback, writeback)
> > __PAGEFLAG(Buddy, buddy)
> > +PAGEFLAG(BuddyCapture, buddy_capture) /* A buddy page, but reserved. */
> > + __SETPAGEFLAG(BuddyCapture, buddy_capture)
> > + __CLEARPAGEFLAG(BuddyCapture, buddy_capture)
>
> Doesnt __PAGEFLAG do what you want without having to explicitly specify
> __SET/__CLEAR?
I think I end up with one extra test that I don't need, but its
probabally much clearer.
> How does page allocator fastpath behavior fare with this pathch?
The fastpath should be unaffected on the allocation side. On the free
side there is an additional check for merging with a buddy under capture
as we merge buddies in __free_one_page.
-apw
--
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