[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5679709B.8030908@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:47:39 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: isolate_lru_page on !head pages
On 12/15/2015 05:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> head page is what linked into LRU, but not nessesary the way we obtain the
>> page to check. If we check PageLRU(pte_page(*pte)) it should produce the
>> right result.
>
> I am not following you here. Any pfn walk could get to a tail page and
> if we happen to do e.g. isolate_lru_page we have to remember that we
> should always treat compound page differently. This is subtle.
I think the problem is that isolate_lru_page() is not the only reason
for calling PageLRU(). And the other use cases have different
expectations, to either way (PF_ANY or PF_HEAD) you pick for PageLRU(),
somebody will have to be careful. IMHO usually it's pfn scanners who
have to be careful for many reasons...
> Anyway I
> am far from understading other parts of the refcount rework so I will
> spend time studying the code as soon as the time permits. In the
> meantime I agree that VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(page), page) would be
> useful to catch all the fallouts.
+1
--
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