CC: Hugh Dickins
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:37 PM Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 10:57:46 PM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:15:47PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 2:56:38 PM AEDT John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > On
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 10:57:46 PM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:15:47PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 2:56:38 PM AEDT John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 3/30/21 3:56 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > ...
> > > >> +1 for renaming "munlock*"
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:15:47PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 2:56:38 PM AEDT John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 3/30/21 3:56 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > ...
> > >> +1 for renaming "munlock*" items to "mlock*", where applicable. good
> grief.
> > >
> > > At least the
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 2:56:38 PM AEDT John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/30/21 3:56 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
> ...
> >> +1 for renaming "munlock*" items to "mlock*", where applicable. good
grief.
> >
> > At least the situation was weird enough to prompt further investigation :)
> >
> > Renaming
On 3/30/21 8:56 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 3/30/21 3:56 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
...
+1 for renaming "munlock*" items to "mlock*", where applicable. good grief.
At least the situation was weird enough to prompt further investigation :)
Renaming to mlock* doesn't feel like the right
On 3/30/21 3:56 PM, Alistair Popple wrote:
...
+1 for renaming "munlock*" items to "mlock*", where applicable. good grief.
At least the situation was weird enough to prompt further investigation :)
Renaming to mlock* doesn't feel like the right solution to me either though. I
am not sure if
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 9:43:19 AM AEDT John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/30/21 3:24 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> ...
> >> As far as I can tell this has always been called try_to_munlock() even
though
> >> it appears to do the opposite.
> >
> > Maybe we should change it then?
> >
> >>> /**
> >>>
On 3/30/21 3:24 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
...
As far as I can tell this has always been called try_to_munlock() even though
it appears to do the opposite.
Maybe we should change it then?
/**
* try_to_munlock - try to munlock a page
* @page: the page to be munlocked
*
* Called from
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:09:30AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > @@ -1796,8 +1821,7 @@ bool try_to_unmap(struct page *page, enum ttu_flags
> flags)
> > > void try_to_munlock(struct page *page)
> > > {
> >
> > But this is also called try_to_munlock ??
>
> As far as I can tell this has
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 9:09:30 AM AEDT Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 5:49:03 AM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > So what clears PG_mlocked on this call path?
>
> See munlock_vma_page(). munlock
On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 5:49:03 AM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> > +static bool try_to_munlock_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct
*vma,
> > +unsigned long address, void *arg)
> > +{
>
> Is this
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:08:00AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> +static bool try_to_munlock_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> + unsigned long address, void *arg)
> +{
Is this function name right?
> + struct page_vma_mapped_walk pvmw = {
> +
12 matches
Mail list logo
