Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 06/03/2013 08:02 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > Dave Hansen wrote: > >> On 05/11/2013 06:23 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > >>> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected] > >>> -#define wait_split_huge_page(__anon_vma, __pmd) > >>> \ > >>> +#define wait_split_huge_page(__vma, __pmd) > >>> \ > >>> do { \ > >>> pmd_t *____pmd = (__pmd); \ > >>> - anon_vma_lock_write(__anon_vma); \ > >>> - anon_vma_unlock_write(__anon_vma); \ > >>> + struct address_space *__mapping = \ > >>> + vma->vm_file->f_mapping; \ > >>> + struct anon_vma *__anon_vma = (__vma)->anon_vma; \ > >>> + if (__mapping) \ > >>> + mutex_lock(&__mapping->i_mmap_mutex); \ > >>> + if (__anon_vma) { \ > >>> + anon_vma_lock_write(__anon_vma); \ > >>> + anon_vma_unlock_write(__anon_vma); \ > >>> + } \ > >>> + if (__mapping) \ > >>> + mutex_unlock(&__mapping->i_mmap_mutex); \ > >>> BUG_ON(pmd_trans_splitting(*____pmd) || \ > >>> pmd_trans_huge(*____pmd)); \ > >>> } while (0) > ... > >> Could you also describe the lengths to which you've gone to try and keep > >> this macro from growing in to any larger of an abomination. Is it truly > >> _impossible_ to turn this in to a normal function? Or will it simply be > >> a larger amount of work that you can do right now? What would it take? > > > > Okay, I've tried once again. The patch is below. It looks too invasive for > > me. What do you think? > > That patch looks great to me, actually. It really looks to just be > superficially moving code around. The diffstat is even too:
One of blocker I see is new dependency <linux/mm.h> -> <linux/fs.h>. It makes header files nightmare worse. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
