Let me take another look at that logic. Thanks!
Best wishes,
--
Ning Qu (曲宁) | Software Engineer | quning@google.com | +1-408-418-6066

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Ning Qu wrote:
>> in shmem_writepage, we have to split the huge page when moving pages
>> from page cache to swap because we don't support huge page in swap
>> yet.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ning Qu <quning@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/shmem.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
>> index 8fe17dd..68a0e1d 100644
>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>> @@ -898,6 +898,13 @@ static int shmem_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
>>       swp_entry_t swap;
>>       pgoff_t index;
>>
>> +     /* TODO: we have to break the huge page at this point,
>> +      * since we have no idea how to recover a huge page from
>> +      * swap.
>> +      */
>> +     if (PageTransCompound(page))
>> +             split_huge_page(compound_trans_head(page));
>> +
>
> After the split you handle here only first small page of the huge page.
> Is it what we want to do? Should we swap out all small pages of the huge
> page?
>
> --
>  Kirill A. Shutemov

--
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 hrefmailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>