Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Low mem virq incremental adjustments

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 08.03.12 at 22:59, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  From: Andres Lagar-Cavilla [mailto:andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 11:12 AM
>> To: Jan Beulich
>> Cc: Dan Magenheimer; ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx; ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx; 
> adin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel; tim@xxxxxxx 
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Low mem virq incremental adjustments
>> 
>> >  >>> On 07.03.12 at 17:15, Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >> --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>> >> +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>> >> @@ -377,7 +377,10 @@ static void __init setup_low_mem_virq(vo
>> >>
>> >>  static void check_low_mem_virq(void)
>> >>  {
>> >> -    if ( unlikely(total_avail_pages <= low_mem_virq_th) )
>> >> +    unsigned long avail_pages = total_avail_pages +
>> >> +                (opt_tmem) ? tmem_freeable_pages(): 0;
>> >
>> > Can tmem_freeable_pages() return anything other than zero when
>> > opt_tmem is zero? (I.e. is the [improperly parenthesized!] conditional
>> > expression necessary at all?)
>> 
>> I'm not sure. I'll let Dan take it from here, as he surely knows the right
>> way. He acked it the way it is.
>> Andres
> 
> Both would be correct (other than the parentheses).
> 
> I was also going to make the same comment about tmem_freeable_pages()
> but decided the way Andres coded it is clearer because it doesn't
> assume anything about tmem; if tmem is enabled, it uses an
> abstract interface this code doesn't need to know anything about.
> 
> Anyway, either way is fine with me.

So I take it that you'll be submitting a fix at least for the parentheses
issue.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel