| Message ID | 20210830141051.64090-4-linmiaohe@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Cleanups and fixup for page_alloc | expand |
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:10:48PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: > It's also confusing now. Remove it. > Why is the whole comment obsolete? The second two paragraphs about "all pages pinned" and pages_scanned is obsolete and can go but the first paragraph is valid.
On 2021/8/31 21:38, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:10:48PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> It's also confusing now. Remove it. >> > > Why is the whole comment obsolete? > > The second two paragraphs about "all pages pinned" and pages_scanned is > obsolete and can go but the first paragraph is valid. > I think the first paragraph is invalid due to the below statement: "Assumes all pages on list are in same zone, and of same order." There are NR_PCP_LISTS lists and PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER + 1 + NR_PCP_THP orders in pcp. So I think it's obsolete. Should I delete this statement in the first paragraph only? Many Thanks.
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:49:03PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: > On 2021/8/31 21:38, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:10:48PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: > >> It's also confusing now. Remove it. > >> > > > > Why is the whole comment obsolete? > > > > The second two paragraphs about "all pages pinned" and pages_scanned is > > obsolete and can go but the first paragraph is valid. > > > > I think the first paragraph is invalid due to the below statement: > "Assumes all pages on list are in same zone, and of same order." > There are NR_PCP_LISTS lists and PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER + 1 + NR_PCP_THP > orders in pcp. So I think it's obsolete. > Ah. > Should I delete this statement in the first paragraph only? > Remove ", and of same order"
On 2021/9/1 23:14, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:49:03PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2021/8/31 21:38, Mel Gorman wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:10:48PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>>> It's also confusing now. Remove it. >>>> >>> >>> Why is the whole comment obsolete? >>> >>> The second two paragraphs about "all pages pinned" and pages_scanned is >>> obsolete and can go but the first paragraph is valid. >>> >> >> I think the first paragraph is invalid due to the below statement: >> "Assumes all pages on list are in same zone, and of same order." >> There are NR_PCP_LISTS lists and PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER + 1 + NR_PCP_THP >> orders in pcp. So I think it's obsolete. >> > > Ah. > >> Should I delete this statement in the first paragraph only? >> > > Remove ", and of same order" Will do this in v2. Thanks. >
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c index d3983244f56f..b5edcfe112aa 100644 --- a/mm/page_alloc.c +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -1424,17 +1424,6 @@ static inline void prefetch_buddy(struct page *page) prefetch(buddy); } -/* - * Frees a number of pages from the PCP lists - * Assumes all pages on list are in same zone, and of same order. - * count is the number of pages to free. - * - * If the zone was previously in an "all pages pinned" state then look to - * see if this freeing clears that state. - * - * And clear the zone's pages_scanned counter, to hold off the "all pages are - * pinned" detection logic. - */ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count, struct per_cpu_pages *pcp) {
It's also confusing now. Remove it. Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> --- mm/page_alloc.c | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)