Re: [PATCH 8/9] memory-hotplug: enable memory hotplug to handlehugepage

[Naoya Horiguchi]

Hi Hillf,

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 03:05:30PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> Hello Naoya
> 
> [add Michal in cc list]
> 
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Naoya Horiguchi
> <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +/* Returns true for head pages of in-use hugepages, otherwise returns false. */
> > +int is_hugepage_movable(struct page *hpage)
> s/int/bool/  can we?

Yes, we can. I'll do this.

> > +{
> > +       struct page *page;
> > +       struct page *tmp;
> > +       struct hstate *h = page_hstate(hpage);
> Make sense to compute hstate for a tail page?

No need to do this here.
It's better to put it after PageTail check.

> > +       int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +       VM_BUG_ON(!PageHuge(hpage));
> > +       if (PageTail(hpage))
> > +               return 0;
> VM_BUG_ON(!PageHuge(hpage) || PageTail(hpage)), can we?

I think that firing BUG_ON() for tail pages is overkill.
Pfn range over which scan_movable_pages() runs could start
at the pfn inside the hugepage when we try to hot-remove
the memory block used by 1GB hugepage. In that case,
is_hugepage_movable() can be called for tail pages as a
normal behavior.

But anyway, I'll add the comment for this corner case.

> > +       spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > +       list_for_each_entry_safe(page, tmp, &h->hugepage_activelist, lru)
> s/_safe//  can we?

OK.

> > +               if (page == hpage)
> > +                       ret = 1;
> Can we bail out with ret set to be true?

Yes, inserting break is good for performance.

> > +       spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > +       return ret;
> > +}

Thank you!
Naoya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/