[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <db051a89-4eef-42c1-9fd2-16ffbad18b75@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:00:06 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, hughd@...gle.com,
willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: vmscan: remove folio_test_private() check in
pageout()
>>>>> - if (folio_test_private(folio)) {
>>>>> - if (try_to_free_buffers(folio)) {
>>>>> - folio_clear_dirty(folio);
>>>>> - pr_info("%s: orphaned folio\n", __func__);
>>>>> - return PAGE_CLEAN;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> - }
>>>>> + VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(true, folio);
>>
>> Unexpected but better to use VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO here.
>
> Um, I don't think it makes much difference, because we should no longer
> hit this.
I mean, all VM_WARN_ON are not expected to be hit. But if it ever
happens, it's usually going to be a lot.
(I recall Lorenzo wanted to look into cleaning a lot of that up and
possibly unifying both helpers)
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists