Re: [PATCH 07/12] mm, thp, tmpfs: handle huge page inshmem_undo_range for truncate

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

Ning Qu wrote:
> > Again. Here and below ifdef is redundant: PageTransHugeCache() is zero
> > compile-time and  thp case will be optimize out.
> 
> The problem is actually from HPAGE_CACHE_INDEX_MASK, it is marked as
> build bug when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_PAGECACHE is false. So we
> either wrap some logic inside a inline function, or we have to be like
> this .. Or we don't treat the HPAGE_CACHE_INDEX_MASK as a build bug?

HPAGE_CACHE_INDEX_MASK shouldn't be a problem.
If it's wrapped into 'if PageTransHugeCache(page)' or similar it will be
eliminated by compiler if thp-pc disabled and build bug will not be
triggered.

> 
> >
> > And do we really need a copy of truncate logic here? Is there a way to
> > share code?
> >
> The truncate between tmpfs and general one is similar but not exactly
> the same (no readahead), so share the whole function might not be a
> good choice from the perspective of tmpfs? Anyway, there are other
> similar functions in tmpfs, e.g. the one you mentioned for
> shmem_add_to_page_cache. It is possible to share the code, I am just
> worried it will make the logic more complicated?

I think introducing thp-pc is good opportunity to refactor all these code.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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/