On 2022/6/10 15:23, Miaohe Lin wrote: > On 2022/6/7 5:44, Yang Shi wrote: >> The hugepage_vma_check() already checked it, so remove the redundant >> check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> mm/khugepaged.c | 3 --- >> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c >> index d0f8020164fc..7a5d1c1a1833 100644 >> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c >> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c >> @@ -966,9 +966,6 @@ static int hugepage_vma_revalidate(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address, >> return SCAN_ADDRESS_RANGE; >> if (!hugepage_vma_check(vma, vma->vm_flags)) >> return SCAN_VMA_CHECK; >> - /* Anon VMA expected */ >> - if (!vma->anon_vma || !vma_is_anonymous(vma)) >> - return SCAN_VMA_CHECK; > > Is it possible that hugepage_vma_check returns true due to the shmem check, or file thp check since > we dropped mmap_lock ? So anon vma is explicitly checked again here? I just see your discussion with similar problem. Sorry for make noise. > > Thanks! > >> return 0; >> } >> >> >
