From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:58:09 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] capture pages freed during direct reclaim for allocation by the reclaimer Message-ID: <20080904085809.GA6460@brain> References: <1220467452-15794-5-git-send-email-apw@shadowen.org> <1220475206-23684-1-git-send-email-apw@shadowen.org> <48BEFAF9.3030006@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48BEFAF9.3030006@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman List-ID: 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org