On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:06:56PM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> >page_isolation.c may also be a better fit than page_alloc.c
>
> Since isolate_freepages_block() is the only user of split_free_page(),
> would it make sense to move split_free_page() to page_isolation.c as
> well? I sort of lik
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:04:48 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
For the purposes of review, have a separate patch for moving
isolate_freepages_block to another file that does not alter the
function in any way. When the function is updated in a follow-on patch,
it'll be far easier to see what has changed.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 09:05:05PM -0700, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:54:42PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >> This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
> >> which allocates (ie. removes from buddy system) free pages
> >> in range. Caller has to guara
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:54:42PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
>> which allocates (ie. removes from buddy system) free pages
>> in range. Caller has to guarantee that all pages in range
>> are in buddy system.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 0
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:06:24 -0700, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:26:37AM -0700, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:21:09 -0700, Mel Gorman wrote:
>At this point, I'm going to apologise for not reviewing this a long long
>time ago.
>
>On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:54
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:26:37AM -0700, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:21:09 -0700, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> >At this point, I'm going to apologise for not reviewing this a long long
> >time ago.
> >
> >On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:54:42PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >>From:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:48:46 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:26 -0700, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> You can do this in a more general fashion by checking the
> zone boundaries and resolving the pfn->page every MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES.
> That will not be SPARSEMEM specific.
I've tr
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 10:26 -0700, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> > You can do this in a more general fashion by checking the
> > zone boundaries and resolving the pfn->page every MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES.
> > That will not be SPARSEMEM specific.
>
> I've tried doing stuff that way but it ended up with much
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:21:09 -0700, Mel Gorman wrote:
At this point, I'm going to apologise for not reviewing this a long long
time ago.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:54:42PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
which
At this point, I'm going to apologise for not reviewing this a long long
time ago.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:54:42PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>
> This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
> which allocates (ie. removes from buddy system) free pag
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:21:07 +0200
Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > +
> > > +void free_contig_pages(unsigned long pfn, unsigned nr_pages)
> > > +{
> > > + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> > > +
> > > + while (nr_pages--) {
> > > + __free_page(page);
> > > + ++pfn;
> > > +
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your comments. I will try to address them in the next round of
CMA patches.
On Saturday, October 15, 2011 1:30 AM Andrew Morton wrote:
(snipped)
> > +
> > +void free_contig_pages(unsigned long pfn, unsigned nr_pages)
> > +{
> > + struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:01:36 +0200 "Michal Nazarewicz" wrote:
Still, as I think of it now, maybe alloc_contig_free_range() would be
better?
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:31:16 +0200, Andrew Morton wrote:
Nope. Of *course* the pages were free. Otherwise we couldn't
(re)allocate them. I still think
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:01:36 +0200 "Michal Nazarewicz"
wrote:
> Still, as I think of it now, maybe alloc_contig_free_range() would be
> better?
Nope. Of *course* the pages were free. Otherwise we couldn't
(re)allocate them. I still think the "free" part is redundant.
What could be improved
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:29:33 +0200, Andrew Morton
wrote:
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:54:42 +0200
Marek Szyprowski wrote:
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
The "freed" seems redundant to me. Wouldn't "alloc_contig_pages" be a
better name?
Th
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:54:42 +0200
Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>
> This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
The "freed" seems redundant to me. Wouldn't "alloc_contig_pages" be a
better name?
> which allocates (ie. removes from buddy system) free pages
16 matches
Mail list logo
