Hi David and Barry, Thanks a lot for paying attention! On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 6:14 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05.07.24 12:12, Barry Song wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 9:08 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> @@ -3253,8 +3259,9 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list, > >>> i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping); > >>> out: > >>> xas_destroy(&xas); > >>> - if (is_thp) > >>> + if (order >= HPAGE_PMD_ORDER) > >> > >> We likely should be using "== HPAGE_PMD_ORDER" here, to be safe for the > >> future. > > > > I feel this might need to be separate since all other places are using > > folio_test_pmd_mappable() ? > > Likely, but as you are moving away from this ... this counter here does > and will always only care about HPAGE_PMD_ORDER. I appreciate the different opinions on whether we should use ">= HPAGE_PMD_ORDER" or "==" for this check. In this context, let's leave it as is and stay consistent with folio_test_pmd_mappable() by using ">= HPAGE_PMD_ORDER", what do you think? Thanks, Lance > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
