Re: isolate_lru_page on !head pages

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 12/15/2015 05:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> head page is what linked into LRU, but not nessesary the way we obtain the
>> page to check. If we check PageLRU(pte_page(*pte)) it should produce the
>> right result.
>
> I am not following you here. Any pfn walk could get to a tail page and
> if we happen to do e.g. isolate_lru_page we have to remember that we
> should always treat compound page differently. This is subtle.

I think the problem is that isolate_lru_page() is not the only reason 
for calling PageLRU(). And the other use cases have different 
expectations, to either way (PF_ANY or PF_HEAD) you pick for PageLRU(), 
somebody will have to be careful. IMHO usually it's pfn scanners who 
have to be careful for many reasons...

> Anyway I
> am far from understading other parts of the refcount rework so I will
> spend time studying the code as soon as the time permits. In the
> meantime I agree that VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(page), page) would be
> useful to catch all the fallouts.

+1

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>