[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUj2SCML4h7X5TWu@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:20:56 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] mm: memory: use a folio in zap_pte_range()
On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:30:59AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> On 2023/11/5 1:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > - page_remove_rmap(page, vma, false);
> > > - put_page(page);
> > > + page_remove_rmap(&folio->page, vma, false);
> > > + folio_put(folio);
> >
> > This is wrong. If we have a PTE-mapped THP, you'll remove the head page
> > N times instead of removing each of N pages.
>
> This is device private entry, I suppose that it won't be a THP and large
> folio when check migrate_vma_check_page() and migrate_vma_insert_page(),
> right?
I don't want to leave that kind of booby-trap in the code. Both places
which currently call page_remove_rmap() should be left as referring to
the page, not the folio.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists