On 2023/3/4 2:39, SeongJae Park wrote:
Hi Kefeng,
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:43:42 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Omit three lines by unified folio_put(), and make code more clear.
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/damon/paddr.c | 11 ++++-------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/damon/paddr.c b/mm/damon/paddr.c
index 3fda00a0f786..2ef9db0189ca 100644
--- a/mm/damon/paddr.c
+++ b/mm/damon/paddr.c
@@ -130,24 +130,21 @@ static bool damon_pa_young(unsigned long paddr, unsigned long *folio_sz)
accessed = false;
else
accessed = true;
- folio_put(folio);
goto out;
Because you moved 'out' label to not include *folio_sz setting, folio_sz will
not set in this case. It should be set.
oh, it should be fixed.
}
need_lock = !folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_ksm(folio);
- if (need_lock && !folio_trylock(folio)) {
- folio_put(folio);
- return false;
- }
+ if (need_lock && !folio_trylock(folio))
+ goto out;
rmap_walk(folio, &rwc);
if (need_lock)
folio_unlock(folio);
- folio_put(folio);
-out:
*folio_sz = folio_size(folio);
+out:
+ folio_put(folio);
Before this change, folio_size() is called after folio_put(). Shouldn't it be
called before folio_put()? If so, could we make a separate fix for that first,
and then make this change on top of it, so that it can be easily applied to
relevant stable kernels?
Yes， I could separate it, after folio_put(), the folio could be
re-allocated and the folio_size calculation is not right.
Thanks,
SJ
return accessed;
}
--
2.35.3
