[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090722160649.61176c61.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:06:49 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mel@....ul.ie, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
maximlevitsky@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, hannes@...xchg.org, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Warn once when a page is freed with PG_mlocked set
V2
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > -static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
> > +static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page, int wasMlocked)
> > {
> > + WARN_ONCE(wasMlocked, KERN_WARNING
> > + "Page flag mlocked set for process %s at pfn:%05lx\n"
> > + "page:%p flags:0x%lX\n",
> > + current->comm, page_to_pfn(page),
> > + page, page->flags|__PG_MLOCKED);
> > +
> > if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) |
>
> There is already a free_page_mlocked() that is only called if the mlock
> bit is set. Move it into there to avoid having to run two checks in the
> hot codee path?
Agreed.
This patch gratuitously adds hotpath overhead. Moving the change to be
inside those preexisting wasMlocked tests will reduce its overhead a lot.
As it stands, I'm really doubting that the patch's utility is worth its
cost.
Also, it's a bit of a figleaf, but please consider making more use of
CONFIG_DEBUG_VM (see VM_BUG_ON()).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists