On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 18:26:33 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:43:43 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Omit one line by unified folio_put(), and make code more clear.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/damon/paddr.c | 9 ++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/damon/paddr.c b/mm/damon/paddr.c
> > index 2ef9db0189ca..6930ebf3667c 100644
> > --- a/mm/damon/paddr.c
> > +++ b/mm/damon/paddr.c
> > @@ -266,17 +266,16 @@ static inline unsigned long damon_pa_mark_accessed_or_deactivate(
> > if (!folio)
> > continue;
> >
> > - if (damos_pa_filter_out(s, folio)) {
> > - folio_put(folio);
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > + if (damos_pa_filter_out(s, folio))
> > + goto put_folio;
> >
> > if (mark_accessed)
> > folio_mark_accessed(folio);
> > else
> > folio_deactivate(folio);
> > - folio_put(folio);
> > applied += folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > +put_folio:
> > + folio_put(folio);
>
> I think this change is ok, but shouldn't the 'folio_put()' have called before
s/before/after/
> 'folio_nr_pages()' anyway? If so, could we make the change as a separate fix
> first, and then make this change, so that it can be easily applied to relevant
> stable kernels?
>
>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> > }
> > return applied * PAGE_SIZE;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.35.3
> >
> >
