[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200109083438.GG4951@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:34:38 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: thp: grab the lock before manipulation defer list
On Thu 09-01-20 10:03:19, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:40:41AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >Moreover, look at the code you are trying to fix. Sure extending the
> >locking seem straightforward but does it result in a correct code
> >though? See my question in the previous email. How do we know that the
> >page is actually enqued in a non-empty list?
>
> I may not get your point for the last sentence.
>
> The list_empty() doesn't check the queue is empty but check the list, here is
> the page, is not enqueued into any list. Is this your concern?
My bad. For some reason I have misread the code and thought this was
get_deferred_split_queue rather than page_deferred_list. Sorry about the
confusion.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists