[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <feca0034-3914-6f4e-1260-7c3091639fda@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:15:12 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/7] mm,hugetlb: Split prep_new_huge_page functionality
On 14.04.21 06:59, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:33:41PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> -static void prep_new_huge_page(struct hstate *h, struct page *page, int nid)
>>> +/*
>>> + * Must be called with the hugetlb lock held
>>> + */
>>> +static void __prep_account_new_huge_page(struct hstate *h, int nid)
>>> +{
>>> + h->nr_huge_pages++;
>>> + h->nr_huge_pages_node[nid]++;
>>
>> I would prefer if we also move setting the destructor to this routine.
>> set_compound_page_dtor(page, HUGETLB_PAGE_DTOR);
>
> Uhm, but that is the routine that does the accounting, it feels wrong
> here, plus...
I agree. If we want the final activation separately, it might be better
to have it as a separate step/function like __active_new_huge_page().
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists