Re: [PATCH 6/8] mm, hugetlb: remove vma_has_reserves

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 16:04 -0500, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 07:52:24PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > vma_has_reserves() can be substituted by using return value of
> > vma_needs_reservation(). If chg returned by vma_needs_reservation()
> > is 0, it means that vma has reserves. Otherwise, it means that vma don't
> > have reserves and need a hugepage outside of reserve pool. This definition
> > is perfectly same as vma_has_reserves(), so remove vma_has_reserves().
> 
> I'm concerned that this patch doesn't work when VM_NORESERVE is set.
> vma_needs_reservation() doesn't check VM_NORESERVE and this patch changes
> dequeue_huge_page_vma() not to check it. So no one seems to check it any more.

Good catch. I agree, this is new behavior and quite frankly not worth
changing just for a cleanup - the code is subtle enough as it is. I'm
dropping this patch and #7 which depends on this one, if Joonsoo wants
to later pursue this, he can.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/