From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:57:19 -0600 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Split the free lists into kernel and user parts Message-ID: <20060131195718.GA8496@dmt.cnet> References: <20060120115415.16475.8529.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> <20060120115455.16475.93688.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> <20060122133147.GA4186@dmt.cnet> <20060123191341.GA4892@dmt.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: > > Other codepaths which touch page->flags do not hold any lock, so you > > really must use atomic operations, except when you've guarantee that the > > page is being freed and won't be reused. > > > > Understood, so I took another look to be sure; > > PageEasyRclm() is used on pages that are about to be freed to the main > or per-cpu allocator so it should be safe. > > __SetPageEasyRclm is called when the page is about to be freed. It should > be safe from concurrent access. > > __ClearPageEasyRclm is called when the page is about to be allocated. It > should be safe. > > I think it is guaranteed that there are on concurrent accessing of the > page flags. Is there something I have missed? Nope, you are right. The usage is safe. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org