On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:05:54AM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> __set_page_dirty_no_writeback() should return true if it actually transitioned
> the page from a clean to dirty state although it seems nobody used its return
> value now.
>
> Change from v1:
> * preserving cacheline optimisation as Andrew pointed out
>
> Signed-off-by: Bob Liu <lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page-writeback.c | 4 +++-
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> index bf85062..ac7018a 100644
> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> @@ -1157,8 +1157,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(write_one_page);
> */
> int __set_page_dirty_no_writeback(struct page *page)
> {
> - if (!PageDirty(page))
> + if (!PageDirty(page)) {
> SetPageDirty(page);
> + return 1;
> + }
> return 0;
> }
It's still racy if not using TestSetPageDirty(). In fact
set_page_dirty() has a default reference implementation:
if (!PageDirty(page)) {
if (!TestSetPageDirty(page))
return 1;
}
return 0;
It seems the return value currently is only tested for doing
balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(). So not a big problem.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>