[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190107150904.09e56f51acaf417ed21f13a3@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:09:04 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Remove redundant test from find_get_pages_contig
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:39:35 -0800 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:33:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:02:24 -0800 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > After we establish a reference on the page, we check the pointer continues
> > > to be in the correct position in i_pages. There's no need to check the
> > > page->mapping or page->index afterwards; if those can change after we've
> > > got the reference, they can change after we return the page to the caller.
> >
> > But that isn't what the comment says.
>
> Right. That patch from Nick moved the check from before taking the
> ref to after taking the ref. It was racy to have it before. But it's
> unnecessary to have it afterwards -- pages can't move once there's a
> ref on them. Or if they can move, they can move after the ref is taken.
So Nick's patch was never necessary? I wonder what inspired it.
Would it be excessively cautious to put a WARN_ON_ONCE() in there for a
while?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists