On 10/3/07, Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> wrote:
quoted text
> The key is that we don't want to shrink the pool below the number of
> pages we are committed to keeping around.  Before this patch, we only
> accounted for the pages we plan to hand out (reserved huge pages) but
> not the ones we've already handed out (total - free).  Does that make
> sense?

Good catch, adam.

From what I can see, the statement
        if (count >= nr_huge_pages)
                return nr_huge_pages;

in set_max_huge_pages() is useless because (1) we recalculate "count"
variable below it; and (2) both try_to_free_low() and the while loop
below the call to try_to_free_low() will terminate correctly.  If you
feel like it, please clean it up as well.

If not, I'm fine with that.

Acked-by: Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/