[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZQHH6ZC9aHQaqlNJ@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:32:09 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] mm/rmap: move SetPageAnonExclusive out of
__page_set_anon_rmap()
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 02:51:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> @@ -1246,11 +1241,13 @@ void page_add_anon_rmap(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>
> if (likely(!folio_test_ksm(folio))) {
> if (first)
> - __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, page, vma, address,
> - !!(flags & RMAP_EXCLUSIVE));
> + __folio_set_anon(folio, vma, address,
> + !!(flags & RMAP_EXCLUSIVE));
> else
> __page_check_anon_rmap(folio, page, vma, address);
> }
> + if (flags & RMAP_EXCLUSIVE)
> + SetPageAnonExclusive(page);
Won't we end up setting AnonExclusive on ksm pages, or do we make sure
to never pass RMAP_EXCLUSIVE for ksm pages?
Maybe better to move these last two lines inside the previous test,
just to avoid the question.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists