Re: [PATCH 1/7] hugetlb, rmap: add reverse mapping for hugepage

[Mel Gorman]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 03:51:56PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Hi, Mel.
> 
> Thank you for the review.
> 
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:59:57AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > ...
> > I'd have preferred to see the whole series but still...
> 
> OK.
> 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > index 78b4bc6..a574d09 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > @@ -14,11 +14,6 @@ struct user_struct;
> > >  
> > >  int PageHuge(struct page *page);
> > >  
> > > -static inline int is_vm_hugetlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > -{
> > > -	return vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  void reset_vma_resv_huge_pages(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
> > >  int hugetlb_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> > >  int hugetlb_overcommit_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> > > @@ -77,11 +72,6 @@ static inline int PageHuge(struct page *page)
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static inline int is_vm_hugetlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > -{
> > > -	return 0;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > 
> > You collapse two functions into one here and move them to another
> > header. Is there a reason why pagemap.h could not include hugetlb.h?
> 
> Yes, hugetlb.h includes pagemap.h through mempolicy.h.
> I didn't make pagemap.h depend on hugetlb.h because it makes cyclic dependency
> among pagemap.h, mempolicy.h and hugetlb.h.
> 

Ok, that's a good reason.

> > It adds another header dependency which is bad but moving hugetlb stuff
> > into mm.h seems bad too.
> 
> I have another choice to move the definition of is_vm_hugetlb_page() into
> mm/hugetlb.c and introduce declaration of this function to pagemap.h,
> but this needed a bit ugly #ifdefs and I didn't like it.
> If putting hugetlb code in mm.h is worse, I'll take the second choice
> in the next post.
> 

That would add an additional function call overhead to page table teardown
which would be very unfortunate. I still am not very keen on moving hugetlb
code to mm.h though.

How about moving the definition of shared_policy under a CONFIG_NUMA
block in mm_types.h and removing the dependency between hugetlb.h and
mempolicy.h?

Does anyone else see a problem with this from a "clean" perspective?

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/