[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YnxDhdb4YCo19Qx0@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 16:15:17 -0700
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 04:13:10PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 5/11/22 16:08, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > OK, so the code checks the wrong item each time. But the code really
> > > only needs to know "is either _CMA or _ISOLATE set?". And so you
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > can just sidestep the entire question by writing it like this:
> > >
> > > int mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> > >
> > > if (mt & (MIGRATE_ISOLATE | MIGRATE_CMA))
> > > return false;
> >
> > I am confused. Isn't it same question?
> >
> > set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
> > if (get_pageblock_migrate(page) & MIGRATE_CMA)
> >
> > set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_CMA)
> >
> > if (get_pageblock_migrate(page) & MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
>
> Well no, because the "&" operation is a single operation on the CPU, and
> isn't going to get split up like that.
Oh, if that's true, yeah, I could live with it.
Thanks, let me post next revision with commenting about that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists