lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/11] ksm: get_ksm_page locked
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Simon Jeons wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:00 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > In some places where get_ksm_page() is used, we need the page to be locked.
> >
>
> In function get_ksm_page, why check page->mapping =>
> get_page_unless_zero => check page->mapping instead of
> get_page_unless_zero => check page->mapping, because
> get_page_unless_zero is expensive?

Yes, it's more expensive.

>
> > When KSM migration is fully enabled, we shall want that to make sure that
> > the page just acquired cannot be migrated beneath us (raised page count is
> > only effective when there is serialization to make sure migration notices).
> > Whereas when navigating through the stable tree, we certainly do not want
>
> What's the meaning of "navigating through the stable tree"?

Finding the right place in the stable tree,
as stable_tree_search() and stable_tree_insert() do.

>
> > to lock each node (raised page count is enough to guarantee the memcmps,
> > even if page is migrated to another node).
> >
> > Since we're about to add another use case, add the locked argument to
> > get_ksm_page() now.
>
> Why the parameter lock passed from stable_tree_search/insert is true,
> but remove_rmap_item_from_tree is false?

The other way round? remove_rmap_item_from_tree needs the page locked,
because it's about to modify the list: that's secured (e.g. against
concurrent KSM page reclaim) by the page lock.

stable_tree_search and stable_tree_insert do not need intermediate nodes
to be locked: get_page is enough to secure the page contents for memcmp,
and we don't want a pointless wait for exclusive page lock on every
intermediate node.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-27 23:41    [W:0.176 / U:2.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site