| Date | Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:20:51 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4 18/24] thp, mm: split_huge_page(): caller need to lock page |
| |
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 07:40:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> writes: > > > We're going to use migration entries instead of compound_lock() to > > stabilize page refcounts. Setup and remove migration entries require > > page to be locked. > > > > Some of split_huge_page() callers already have the page locked. Let's > > require everybody to lock the page before calling split_huge_page(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> > > Why not have split_huge_page_locked/unlocked, and call the one which > takes lock internally every where ?
We could do that, but it's not obvoius for me what is benefit. Couple of lines on caller side?
-- Kirill A. Shutemov
|