On 12/9/19 9:54 AM, Ajay Kaher wrote: > > > On 06/12/19, 8:02 PM, "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 12/6/19 5:15 AM, Ajay Kaher wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 03/12/19, 6:28 PM, "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ 4.4 backport: there's get_page_foll(), so add try_get_page()-like checks >>>>>> in there, enabled by a new parameter, which is false where >>>>>> upstream patch doesn't replace get_page() with try_get_page() >>>>>> (the THP and hugetlb callers). >>>>> >>>>> Could we have try_get_page_foll(), as in: >>>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fstable%2F1570581863-12090-3-git-send-email-akaher%40vmware.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakaher%40vmware.com%7Cb65cf5622ca8401fd2ba08d77a5914e8%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637112395344338606&sdata=sLbw%2BQWu0%2BB0y2OpfaQS%2FxXX6Z9jNB3wPeTcPsawNJA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> + Code will be in sync as we have try_get_page() >>>>> + No need to add extra argument to try_get_page() >>>>> + No need to modify the callers of try_get_page() >>> >>> Any reason for not using try_get_page_foll(). >> >> Ah, sorry, I missed that previously. It's certainly possible to do it >> that way, I just didn't care so strongly to rewrite the existing SLES >> patch. It's a stable backport for a rather old LTS, not a codebase for >> further development. > > Thanks for your response. > > I would appreciate if you would like to include try_get_page_foll(), > and resend this patch series again. I won't have time for that now, but I don't mind if you do that, or resend your version with the missing x86 and s390 gup.c parts and preferably without 7aef4172c795.
