[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58F03443.9040202@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:30:27 +0800
From: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com,
david@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, aarcange@...hat.com,
amit.shah@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
liliang.opensource@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] mm: function to offer a page block on the free
list
On 04/14/2017 04:02 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:35:06 +0800 Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> Add a function to find a page block on the free list specified by the
>> caller. Pages from the page block may be used immediately after the
>> function returns. The caller is responsible for detecting or preventing
>> the use of such pages.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -4498,6 +4498,93 @@ void show_free_areas(unsigned int filter)
>> show_swap_cache_info();
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * Heuristically get a page block in the system that is unused.
>> + * It is possible that pages from the page block are used immediately after
>> + * inquire_unused_page_block() returns. It is the caller's responsibility
>> + * to either detect or prevent the use of such pages.
>> + *
>> + * The free list to check: zone->free_area[order].free_list[migratetype].
>> + *
>> + * If the caller supplied page block (i.e. **page) is on the free list, offer
>> + * the next page block on the list to the caller. Otherwise, offer the first
>> + * page block on the list.
>> + *
>> + * Return 0 when a page block is found on the caller specified free list.
>> + */
>> +int inquire_unused_page_block(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
>> + unsigned int migratetype, struct page **page)
>> +{
> Perhaps we can wrap this in the appropriate ifdef so the kernels which
> won't be using virtio-balloon don't carry the added overhead.
>
>
OK. What do you think if we add this:
#if defined(CONFIG_VIRTIO_BALLOON) || defined(CONFIG_VIRTIO_BALLOON_MODULE)
Best,
Wei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists