Re: [PATCH 3/9] mm: Call free_transhuge_folio() directly from destroy_large_folio()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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).

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux