[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=pDuFb4s3hg4M+AKphthgkCgFWMPKb9od7opcvDop4haQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:53:55 -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()
> I rewrite the comment here, how about this?
>
> - if (absent ||
> + /*
> + * We need call hugetlb_fault for both hugepages under migration
> + * (in which case hugetlb_fault waits for the migration,) and
> + * hwpoisoned hugepages (in which case we need to prevent the
> + * caller from accessing to them.) In order to do this, we use
> + * here is_swap_pte instead of is_hugetlb_entry_migration and
> + * is_hugetlb_entry_hwpoisoned. This is because it simply covers
> + * both cases, and because we can't follow correct pages directly
> + * from any kind of swap entries.
> + */
> + if (absent || is_swap_pte(huge_ptep_get(pte)) ||
> ((flags & FOLL_WRITE) && !pte_write(huge_ptep_get(pte)))) {
> int ret;
Looks ok to me.
--
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