linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: thp: give transparent hugepage code a separate copy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:34:27 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	dave.jiang@...el.com, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: thp: give transparent hugepage code a separate
 copy_page

On 11/06/2013 05:46 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
>> +
>> +void copy_high_order_page(struct page *newpage,
>> +                         struct page *oldpage,
>> +                         int order)
>> +{
>> +       int i;
>> +
>> +       might_sleep();
>> +       for (i = 0; i < (1<<order); i++) {
>> +               cond_resched();
>> +               copy_highpage(newpage + i, oldpage + i);
>> +       }
>> +}
> 
> Can we make no  use of might_sleep here with cond_resched in loop?

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Are you pointing out that cond_resched() actually calls might_sleep() so
the might_sleep() is redundant?

--
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/