[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=ruv9itn7fhcL=Ar7z_6wQ5Ga_4kj7Ui3EfDUe_cV7D0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:57:44 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] hugetlbfs: add swap entry check in follow_hugetlb_page()
> - if (absent ||
> + /*
> + * is_swap_pte test covers both is_hugetlb_entry_hwpoisoned
> + * and hugepages under migration in which case
> + * hugetlb_fault waits for the migration and bails out
> + * properly for HWPosined pages.
> + */
> + if (absent || is_swap_pte(huge_ptep_get(pte)) ||
> ((flags & FOLL_WRITE) && !pte_write(huge_ptep_get(pte)))) {
> int ret;
Your comment describe what the code is. However we want the comment describe
why. In migration case, calling hugetlb_fault() is natural. but in
hwpoison case, it is
needed more explanation. Why can't we call is_hugetlb_hwpoisoned() directly?
--
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