/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -906,18 +906,11 @@ static inline bool page_expected_state(struct page *page,
return true;
}
-static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
+static void free_pages_check_bad(struct page *page)
{
const char *bad_reason;
unsigned
tatic void free_pages_check_bad(struct page *page)
}
static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
{
- if (likely(page_expected_state(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE))) {
- page_cpupid_reset_last(page);
- page->flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP
On 04/27/2016 02:41 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Check without side-effects should be easier to maintain. It also removes the
duplicated cpupid and flags reset done in !DEBUG_VM variant of both
free_pcp_prepare() and then bulkfree_pcp_pre
On 04/27/2016 02:37 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 02:01:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
!DEBUG_VM bloat-o-meter:
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 124/-383 (-259)
function old new delta
free_pages_check_bad
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Check without side-effects should be easier to maintain. It also removes the
> duplicated cpupid and flags reset done in !DEBUG_VM variant of both
> free_pcp_prepare() and then bulkfree_pcp_prepare(). Finally, it enables
> the next
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 02:01:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> !DEBUG_VM bloat-o-meter:
>
> add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 124/-383 (-259)
> function old new delta
> free_pages_check_bad - 124+124
> free_pcp
@@ static inline bool page_expected_state(struct page *page,
return true;
}
-static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
+static void free_pages_check_bad(struct page *page)
{
const char *bad_reason;
unsigned long bad_flags;
- if (page_expected_state(page
+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 12c03a8509a0..163d08ea43f0 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -932,11 +932,8 @@ static void free_pages_check_bad(struct page *page)
}
static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
{
- if (l
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 16:44, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 January 2008 13:43, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> wonder why free_pages_check mm/page_alloc.c is using bit OR than logical
> >> OR
> >>
> >> @@ -450,9 +450,
Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 13:43, Yinghai Lu wrote:
wonder why free_pages_check mm/page_alloc.c is using bit OR than logical OR
@@ -450,9 +450,9 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struc
static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
{
- if (unlikely
On Tuesday 08 January 2008 13:43, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> wonder why free_pages_check mm/page_alloc.c is using bit OR than logical OR
>
> @@ -450,9 +450,9 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struc
>
> static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
> {
> - if (u
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:43:46 -0800 "Yinghai Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wonder why free_pages_check mm/page_alloc.c is using bit OR than logical OR
>
> @@ -450,9 +450,9 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struc
>
> static inline int free_pages_check(struc
wonder why free_pages_check mm/page_alloc.c is using bit OR than logical OR
@@ -450,9 +450,9 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struc
static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
{
- if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) |
- (page->mapping != N
13 matches
Mail list logo
