On 2/14/24 2:45 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Use folio api functions from the already defined src and dst folio
variables.
Signed-off-by: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/migrate_device.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
index 9152a329b0a68..a48d5cdb28553 100644
--- a/mm/migrate_device.c
+++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
@@ -843,17 +843,17 @@ void migrate_device_finalize(unsigned long *src_pfns,
remove_migration_ptes(src, dst, false);
folio_unlock(src);
- if (is_zone_device_page(page))
- put_page(page);
+ if (folio_is_zone_device(src))
+ folio_put(src);
else
- putback_lru_page(page);
+ folio_putback_lru(src);
if (newpage != page) {
- unlock_page(newpage);
- if (is_zone_device_page(newpage))
- put_page(newpage);
Defining migrate_pfn_to_folio() would also allow the removal of the
newpage and page variables entirely which I think would make this
clearer.
As an aside is there any motivation for making these changes other than
as a general cleanup? I ask only because I have been looking at allowing
device pages with order > 0 so have some of these clean-ups in a local
tree as they're a pre-requisite for that.
- Alistair
Hello,
The motivation is just general cleanup. In folio-compat.c I saw that
putback_lru_page() does not have much users left so I could convert them and
then just get rid of putback_lru_page(). Should I still continue with a v2 that
will include defining a migrate_pfn_to_folio() or wait for your clean-ups?
Thanks,
Sid
+ folio_unlock(dst);
+ if (folio_is_zone_device(dst))
+ folio_put(dst);
else
- putback_lru_page(newpage);
+ folio_putback_lru(dst);
}
}
}
