[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fae2def0-918a-495b-a89b-3a8eedd44b1f@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:51:41 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
chrisl@...nel.org, hanchuanhua@...o.com, ioworker0@...il.com,
kaleshsingh@...gle.com, kasong@...cent.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, ryan.roberts@....com, v-songbaohua@...o.com,
ziy@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] mm: collect the number of anon large folios
> the correct place should be:
>
> @@ -1329,6 +1326,10 @@ static int migrate_folio_move(free_folio_t
> put_new_folio, unsigned long private,
> if (anon_vma)
> put_anon_vma(anon_vma);
> folio_unlock(src);
> +
> + if (folio_test_anon(src))
> + mod_mthp_stat(folio_order(src), MTHP_STAT_NR_ANON, 1);
> +
> migrate_folio_done(src, reason);
>
> return rc;
>
> Without this modification in migration code, my tests fail, anon_num can
> become negative.
I was wondering if we should do it in __folio_migrate_mapping().
There, we set newfolio->mapping.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists