Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: Introduce GFP_PGTABLE | From | Christophe Leroy <> | Date | Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:49:29 +0100 |
| |
Le 12/01/2019 à 13:12, Matthew Wilcox a écrit : > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 03:56:38PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> All architectures have been defining their own PGALLOC_GFP as (GFP_KERNEL | >> __GFP_ZERO) and using it for allocating page table pages. > > Except that's not true. > >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c >> @@ -13,19 +13,17 @@ phys_addr_t physical_mask __ro_after_init = (1ULL << __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT) - 1; >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(physical_mask); >> #endif >> >> -#define PGALLOC_GFP (GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO) >> - >> #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHPTE > > ... > >> pte_t *pte_alloc_one_kernel(struct mm_struct *mm) >> { >> - return (pte_t *)__get_free_page(PGALLOC_GFP & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT); >> + return (pte_t *)__get_free_page(GFP_PGTABLE & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT); >> }
As far as I can see,
#define GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT)
So what's the difference between:
(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO) & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT
and
(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO) & ~__GFP_ACCOUNT
Christophe
> > I think x86 was the only odd one out here, but you'll need to try again ... >
| |