Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1577941
| From | Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv6 05/37] thp: try to free page's buffers before attempt split |
| Date | 2017-02-09 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t93Fw-2mP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <t3QSB-6QS-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <t3R2k-79n-65@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:57:47PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> @@ -2146,6 +2146,23 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
> goto out;
> }
>
> + /* Try to free buffers before attempt split */
> + if (!PageSwapBacked(head) && PagePrivate(page)) {
> + /*
> + * We cannot trigger writeback from here due possible
> + * recursion if triggered from vmscan, only wait.
> + *
> + * Caller can trigger writeback it on its own, if safe.
> + */
It took me a few reads to get this. May I suggest:
/*
* Cannot split a page with buffers. If the caller has
* already started writeback, we can wait for it to finish,
* but we cannot start writeback if we were called from vmscan
*/
> + if (!PageSwapBacked(head) && PagePrivate(page)) {
Also, it looks weird to test PageSwapBacked of *head* and PagePrivate
of *page*. I think it's correct, but it still looks weird.
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCHv6 05/37] thp: try to free page's buffers before attempt split Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> - 2017-02-09 21:40 +0100 Re: [PATCHv6 05/37] thp: try to free page's buffers before attempt split "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> - 2017-02-13 15:40 +0100
csiph-web