[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180216155752.4a17cfd41875911c79807585@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:57:52 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc/kpageflags: add KPF_WAITERS
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:36:41 +0300 Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru> wrote:
> KPF_WAITERS indicates tasks are waiting for a page lock or writeback.
> This might be false-positive, in this case next unlock will clear it.
Well, kpageflags is full of potential false-positives. Or do you think
this flag is especially vulnerable?
In other words, under what circumstances will we have KPF_WAITERS set
when PG_locked and PG-writeback are clear?
> This looks like worth information not only for kernel hacking.
Why? What are the use-cases, in detail? How are we to justify this
modification?
> In tool page-types in non-raw mode treat KPF_WAITERS without
> KPF_LOCKED and KPF_WRITEBACK as false-positive and hide it.
> fs/proc/page.c | 1 +
> include/uapi/linux/kernel-page-flags.h | 1 +
> tools/vm/page-types.c | 7 +++++++
Please update Documentation/vm/pagemap.txt.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists