From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH] mm: adding comment why mark_page_accessed() would be better than pte_mkyoung() in follow_page()
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:55:29 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090213145039.77C8.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
I and hugh discussed about mark_page_accessed() in follow_page() should be
change or not. and we agreed it isn't needed without adding comment.
==
At first look, mark_page_accessed() in follow_page() seems a bit strange.
it seems pte_mkyoung() would be better and to consist other kernel code.
However, it is intentionally. past commitlog said,
------------------------------------------------
commit 9e45f61d69be9024a2e6bef3831fb04d90fac7a8
Author: akpm <akpm>
Date: Fri Aug 15 07:24:59 2003 +0000
[PATCH] Use mark_page_accessed() in follow_page()
Touching a page via follow_page() counts as a reference so we should be
either setting the referenced bit in the pte or running mark_page_accessed().
Altering the pte is tricky because we haven't implemented an atomic
pte_mkyoung(). And mark_page_accessed() is better anyway because it has more
aging state: it can move the page onto the active list.
BKrev: 3f3c8acbplT8FbwBVGtth7QmnqWkIw
------------------------------------------------
The atomic issue is still true nowadays. adding comment help to understand
code intention and it would be better.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
---
mm/memory.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
Index: b/mm/memory.c
===================================================================
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -1151,6 +1151,11 @@ struct page *follow_page(struct vm_area_
if ((flags & FOLL_WRITE) &&
!pte_dirty(pte) && !PageDirty(page))
set_page_dirty(page);
+ /*
+ * pte_mkyoung() would be more correct here, but atomic care
+ * is needed to avoid losing dirty bit: easier to
+ * mark_page_accessed().
+ */
mark_page_accessed(page);
}
unlock:
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
reply other threads:[~2009-02-13 5:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090213145039.77C8.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox