Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: a patch drop request in -mm | Date | Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:40:34 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:00:51AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Mel, > > > > Today, my test found following patch makes false-positive warning. > > because, truncate can free the pages > > although the pages are mlock()ed. > > > > So, I think following patch should be dropped. > > .. or, do you think truncate should clear PG_mlock before free the page? > > Is there a reason that truncate cannot clear PG_mlock before freeing the > page?
CC to Lee. IIRC, Lee tried it at first. but after some trouble, he decided change free_hot_cold_page(). but unfortunately, I don't recall the reason ;-)
Lee, Can you recall it?
> > Can I ask your patch intention? > > Locked pages being freed to the page allocator were considered > unexpected and a counter was in place to determine how often that > situation occurred. However, I considered it unlikely that the counter > would be noticed so the warning was put in place to catch what class of > pages were getting freed locked inappropriately. I think a few anomolies > have been cleared up since. Ultimately, it should have been safe to > delete the check.
OK. it seems reasonable. so, I only hope no see linus tree output false-positive warnings. Thus, I propse
- don't merge this patch to linus tree - but, no drop from -mm it be holded in mm until this issue fixed. - I'll working on fixing this issue.
I think this is enough fair.
Hannes, I'm sorry. I haven't review your patch. I'm too busy now. please gime me more sevaral time.
| |