From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF516B000A for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 08:47:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id q24-v6so713176wmq.9 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 05:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id o20-v6sor501232wmc.74.2018.07.18.05.47.37 for (Google Transport Security); Wed, 18 Jul 2018 05:47:37 -0700 (PDT) From: osalvador@techadventures.net Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Re-structure free_area_init_node / free_area_init_core Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 14:47:19 +0200 Message-Id: <20180718124722.9872-1-osalvador@techadventures.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, aaron.lu@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Oscar Salvador From: Oscar Salvador When free_area_init_node()->free_area_init_core() get called from memhotplug path, there are some things that we do need to run. This patchset __pretends__ to make more clear what things get executed when those two functions get called depending on the context (non-/memhotplug path). I tested it on x86_64 / powerpc and I did not see anything wrong there. But some feedback would be appreciated. We might come up with the conclusion that we can live with the code as it is now. Oscar Salvador (3): mm/page_alloc: Move ifdefery out of free_area_init_core mm/page_alloc: Refactor free_area_init_core mm/page_alloc: Split context in free_area_init_node mm/page_alloc.c | 181 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) -- 2.13.6