On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:41:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 01/21/2015 01:48 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:04:31 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> + * Should be called with the mm_sem of the vma hold. > > > > That's a pretty cruddy sentence, isn't it? Copied from > > alloc_pages_vma(). "vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem" would be better. > > > > And it should tell us whether mmap_sem required a down_read or a > > down_write. What purpose is it serving? > > This is already said for mmap_sem further above this comment line, which > should be just deleted (and from alloc_hugepage_vma comment too). > > >> + * > >> + */ > >> +struct page *alloc_hugepage_vma(gfp_t gfp, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > >> + unsigned long addr, int order) > > > > This pointlessly bloats the kernel if CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=n? > > > > > > > > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c~mm-thp-allocate-transparent-hugepages-on-local-node-fix > > +++ a/mm/mempolicy.c > > How about this cleanup on top? I'm not fully decided on the GFP_TRANSHUGE > test. > This is potentially false positive, although I doubt anything else uses the > same > gfp mask bits.
This info on gfp mask should be in commit message. And what about WARN_ON_ONCE() if we the matching bits with !TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE? > > Should "hugepage" be extra bool parameter instead? Should I #ifdef the > parameter > only for CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE, or is it not worth the ugliness? Do we have spare gfp bit? ;) -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
