Re: [v2 PATCH 1/2] mm: mempolicy: make the behavior consistent when MPOL_MF_MOVE* and MPOL_MF_STRICT were specified

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

 





On 7/17/19 3:55 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 7/16/19 7:18 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
I think after your patch, you miss putback_movable_pages() in cases
where some were queued, and later the walk returned -EIO. The previous
code doesn't miss it, but it's also not obvious due to the multiple if
(!err) checks. I would rewrite it some thing like this:

if (ret < 0) {
      putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
      err = ret;
      goto mmap_out; // a new label above up_write()
}
Yes, the old code had putback_movable_pages called when !err. But, I
think that is for error handling of mbind_range() if I understand it
correctly since if queue_pages_range() returns -EIO (only MPOL_MF_STRICT
was specified and there was misplaced page) that page list should be
empty . The old code should checked whether that list is empty or not.
Hm I guess you're right, returning with EIO means nothing was queued.
So, in the new code I just removed that.

The rest can have reduced identation now.
Yes, the goto does eliminate the extra indentation.

+	else {
+		err = mbind_range(mm, start, end, new);
- if (nr_failed && (flags & MPOL_MF_STRICT))
-			err = -EIO;
-	} else
-		putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
+		if (!err) {
+			int nr_failed = 0;
+
+			if (!list_empty(&pagelist)) {
+				WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & MPOL_MF_LAZY);
+				nr_failed = migrate_pages(&pagelist, new_page,
+					NULL, start, MIGRATE_SYNC,
+					MR_MEMPOLICY_MBIND);
+				if (nr_failed)
+					putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
+			}
+
+			if ((ret > 0) ||
+			    (nr_failed && (flags & MPOL_MF_STRICT)))
+				err = -EIO;
+		} else
+			putback_movable_pages(&pagelist);
While at it, IIRC the kernel style says that when the 'if' part uses
'{ }' then the 'else' part should as well, and it shouldn't be mixed.
Really? The old code doesn't have '{ }' for else, and checkpatch doesn't
report any error or warning.
Checkpatch probably doesn't catch it, nor did the reviewers of the older
code. But coding-style.rst says:

Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do.

...

This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a
single
statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:

.. code-block:: c

         if (condition) {
                 do_this();
                 do_that();
         } else {
                 otherwise();
         }

Thanks. Good to know this. Anyway, with the "goto" suggested above, we don't need that "else" anymore and we could save some change of lines.



Thanks,
Vlastimil




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux