Re: [PATCH 4/4] capture pages freed during direct reclaim for allocation by the reclaimer

[Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:00 -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?
> 
> PAGEFLAG() __PAGEFLAG()
> 
> does TESTPAGEFLAG() double.
> 

Usually one either wants the atomic versions or the non atomic versions. This
usage seems to be mainly non atomic plus one use of ClearPageBuddy() in
capture_or_return() (Which raises some questions about how the bit
modifications are serialized. Is there concurrency during free?)

So

__PAGEFLAG(BuddyCapture, buddy_capture)
	CLEARPAGEFLAG(BuddyCapture, buddy_capture)

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>