Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Mar 2023 09:03:09 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/damon/paddr: minor refactor of damon_pa_young() | From | Kefeng Wang <> |
| |
On 2023/3/8 2:00, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 09:22:33 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 2023/3/7 5:27, SeongJae Park wrote: >>> Hi Kefeng, >>> >>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:56:49 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2023/3/6 9:10, Kefeng Wang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2023/3/4 2:39, SeongJae Park wrote: >>>>>> Hi Kefeng, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:43:42 +0800 Kefeng Wang >>>>>> <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Omit three lines by unified folio_put(), and make code more clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> mm/damon/paddr.c | 11 ++++------- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/damon/paddr.c b/mm/damon/paddr.c >>>>>>> index 3fda00a0f786..2ef9db0189ca 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/mm/damon/paddr.c >>>>>>> +++ b/mm/damon/paddr.c >>>>>>> @@ -130,24 +130,21 @@ static bool damon_pa_young(unsigned long paddr, >>>>>>> unsigned long *folio_sz) >>>>>>> accessed = false; >>>>>>> else >>>>>>> accessed = true; >>>>>>> - folio_put(folio); >>>>>>> goto out; >>>>>> >>>>>> Because you moved 'out' label to not include *folio_sz setting, >>>>>> folio_sz will >>>>>> not set in this case. It should be set. >>>>> oh, it should be fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> need_lock = !folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_ksm(folio); >>>>>>> - if (need_lock && !folio_trylock(folio)) { >>>>>>> - folio_put(folio); >>>>>>> - return false; >>>>>>> - } >>>> >>>> Hi SJ, apart from above issue, it looks that this branch need the >>>> folio_size() setting, right? >>> >>> folio_sz is effectively used by caller of damon_pa_young() only if this >>> function returns true, so this branch doesn't need to set folio_sz. >> >> __damon_pa_check_access() store last_addr, last_accessed and >> last_folio_sz, even damon_pa_young() return false, the following check >> still use last_folio_sz, >> >> ALIGN_DOWN(last_addr, last_folio_sz) == ALIGN_DOWN(r->sampling_addr, >> last_folio_sz) >> >> but last_folio_sz is not up to date, so I think it need to update, and >> update last_folio_sz is harmless, which could let's unify the return >> path, correct me if I am wrong. > > Ah, you're right. Thank you for kind explanation. I was out of my mind for > some reason. Maybe we could just do 'goto out' in the branch.
Yes, will update this patchset with this change. > > > Thanks, > SJ
| |