On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
>> Â Â Â * preserving cacheline optimisation as Andrew pointed out
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bob Liu <lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Âmm/page-writeback.c | Â Â4 +++-
>> Â1 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);
>> Â */
>> Âint __set_page_dirty_no_writeback(struct page *page)
>> Â{
>> - Â Â if (!PageDirty(page))
>> + Â Â if (!PageDirty(page)) {
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â SetPageDirty(page);
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â return 1;
>> + Â Â }
>> Â Â Â return 0;
>> Â}
>
> It's still racy if not using TestSetPageDirty(). In fact
> set_page_dirty() has a default reference implementation:
Yes, Andrew had also pointed out that. And I have send v3 fix this.
Could you ack it?
>
> Â Â Â Âif (!PageDirty(page)) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âif (!TestSetPageDirty(page))
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn 1;
return !TestSetPageDirty(page) is more simply?
> Â Â Â Â}
> Â Â Â Âreturn 0;
>
> It seems the return value currently is only tested for doing
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(). So not a big problem.
>
yeah, all those are small changes no matter with any problem:-).
--
Thanks,
--Bob
--
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