On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 06:40:30PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:11:40AM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > > Index: linux-2.6.git/mm/memory.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.git.orig/mm/memory.c > > > +++ linux-2.6.git/mm/memory.c > > > @@ -837,6 +837,8 @@ copy_one_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, s > > > */ > > > make_migration_entry_read(&entry); > > > pte = swp_entry_to_pte(entry); > > > + if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(*src_pte)) > > > + pte = pte_swp_mksoft_dirty(pte); > > > set_pte_at(src_mm, addr, src_pte, pte); > > > } > > > } > > > > When we convert pte to swap_entry, we convert soft-dirty bit in > > pte_to_swp_entry(). So I think that it's better to convert it back > > in swp_entry_to_pte() when we do swap_entry-to-pte conversion. > > No, soft dirty bit lays _only_ inside pte entry in memory, iow > swp_entry_t never has this bit, thus to be able to find soft dirty > status in swp_entry_to_pte you need to extend this function and > pass pte entry itself as an argument, which eventually will bring > more massive patch and will be a way more confusing I think. OK, you're right. Thanks for explanation. > Or I misunderstood you? No, I misread the code, sorry. Naoya -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>