On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:40:58AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > @@ -624,6 +621,11 @@ void destroy_large_folio(struct folio *folio)
> > return;
> > }
> > + if (folio_test_transhuge(folio) && dtor == TRANSHUGE_PAGE_DTOR) {
> > + free_transhuge_folio(folio);
>
> I really wonder if folio_test_transhuge() should be written similar to
> folio_test_hugetlb() instead, such that the dtor check is implicit.
>
> Any good reasons not to do that?
Actually, we should probably delete folio_test_transhuge(). I'll tack
a patch onto the end of this series to do that. I want to avoid a
reference to free_transhuge_folio() if !CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE and
folio_test_transhuge() accomplishes that by way of TESTPAGEFLAG_FALSE
in page-flags. But so does folio_test_deferred_list() which is what
we're getting to by the end of this series.
So I'll leave this patch alone for now (other than fixing up the
buildbot errors).
