On 2/16/2023 4:25 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:39:36 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not
care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb()
to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the
hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider
the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb().
No functional changes intended.
Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
[...]
include/linux/hugetlb.h | 6 +++---
mm/hugetlb.c | 13 ++++++++-----
mm/memory-failure.c | 2 +-
mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +-
mm/migrate.c | 7 +++----
5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
[...]
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 3a01a9dbf445..16513cd23d5d 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2925,13 +2925,16 @@ static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
*/
goto free_new;
} else if (folio_ref_count(old_folio)) {
+ bool isolated;
+
/*
* Someone has grabbed the folio, try to isolate it here.
* Fail with -EBUSY if not possible.
*/
spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
- ret = isolate_hugetlb(old_folio, list);
+ isolated = isolate_hugetlb(old_folio, list);
spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
+ ret = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;
goto free_new;
Nit. I'd personally prefer to set 'ret' before entering this critical section
to keep the section short, but this would be just a mean comment that wouldn't
worth request respin.
Yes, good catch. And I see Andrew has helped to do this (Thanks Andrew).
Thanks for reviewing.
