[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100920111844.GL1998@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:18:44 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] hugetlb: redefine hugepage copy functions
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:15:44PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >> +static void copy_gigantic_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src)
> >> +{
> >> + int i;
> >> + struct hstate *h = page_hstate(src);
> >> + struct page *dst_base = dst;
> >> + struct page *src_base = src;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < pages_per_huge_page(h); ) {
> >> + cond_resched();
> >
> > Should this function not have a might_sleep() check too?
>
> cond_resched() implies might_sleep I believe. I think
> that answers the earlier question too becuse that function
> calls this.
>
You're right, cond_resched() calls might_sleep so the additional check
is redundant.
> /*
> >
> > Other than the removal of the might_sleep() check, this looks ok too.
>
> Can I assume an Ack?
>
Yes.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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