On 2023/11/5 1:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 11:55:18AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
-/* Decides whether we should zap this page with the page pointer specified */
-static inline bool should_zap_page(struct zap_details *details, struct page *page)
+/* Decides whether we should zap this folio with the folio pointer specified */
+static inline bool should_zap_page(struct zap_details *details, struct folio *folio)
Surely we should rename this to should_zap_folio()?
Will update.
@@ -1487,10 +1492,10 @@ static unsigned long zap_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
* see zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed().
*/
WARN_ON_ONCE(!vma_is_anonymous(vma));
- rss[mm_counter(page)]--;
+ rss[mm_counter(&folio->page)]--;
if (is_device_private_entry(entry))
- page_remove_rmap(page, vma, false);
- put_page(page);
+ page_remove_rmap(&folio->page, vma, false);
+ folio_put(folio);
This is wrong. If we have a PTE-mapped THP, you'll remove the head page
N times instead of removing each of N pages.
This is device private entry, I suppose that it won't be a THP and large
folio when check migrate_vma_check_page() and migrate_vma_insert_page(),
right?
I suspect you're going to collide with Ryan's work by doing this ...
Maybe not if the above is true, at least for now.
Thanks.
