On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:59:07PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:10:55PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 10:19:35AM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> ...
> > > @@ -95,26 +96,34 @@ static int remove_migration_pte(struct page *new, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > pte_t *ptep, pte;
> > > spinlock_t *ptl;
> > >
> > > - pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> > > - if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
> > > - goto out;
> > > + if (unlikely(PageHuge(new))) {
> > > + ptep = huge_pte_offset(mm, addr);
> > > + if (!ptep)
> > > + goto out;
> > > + ptl = &mm->page_table_lock;
> > > + } else {
> > > + pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> > > + if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
> > > + goto out;
> > >
> > > - pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
> > > - if (!pud_present(*pud))
> > > - goto out;
> > > + pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
> > > + if (!pud_present(*pud))
> > > + goto out;
> > >
> >
> > Why are the changes to teh rest of the walkers necessary? Instead, why
> > did you not identify which PTL lock you needed and then goto the point
> > where spin_lock(ptl) is called? Similar to what page_check_address()
> > does for example.
>
> This is because Andi-san commented to avoid using goto sentense.
> But honestly I'm not sure which is a clear way.
>
Ok, personally I would prefer to have matched page_check_address() so we use
similar code patterns when the intention is the same but as functionally it
seems fine, I'm not going to fight over it either.
Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>