[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190524193415.9733-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 12:34:15 -0700
From: ira.weiny@...el.com
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC] mm/swap: make release_pages() and put_pages() match
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
RFC I have no idea if this is correct or not. But looking at
release_pages() I see a call to both __ClearPageActive() and
__ClearPageWaiters() while in __page_cache_release() I do not.
Is this a bug which needs to be fixed? Did I miss clearing active
somewhere else in the call chain of put_page?
This was found via code inspection while determining if release_pages()
and the new put_user_pages() could be interchangeable.
Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
---
mm/swap.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 3a75722e68a9..9d0432baddb0 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ static void __page_cache_release(struct page *page)
del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_off_lru(page));
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pgdat->lru_lock, flags);
}
+ __ClearPageActive(page);
__ClearPageWaiters(page);
mem_cgroup_uncharge(page);
}
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists