Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm: Prepare for FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE
On 09/08/2017 12:08, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:35:35PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> @@ -2295,7 +2302,11 @@ static int wp_page_copy(struct vm_fault *vmf) >> /* >> * Re-check the pte - we dropped the lock >> */ >> -vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->address, &vmf->ptl); >> +if (!pte_map_lock(vmf)) { >> +mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(new_page, memcg, false); >> +ret = VM_FAULT_RETRY; >> +goto oom_free_new; > > With the change, label is misleading. That's right. But I'm wondering renaming it out to 'out_free_new' and replacing all the matching 'goto' where the label was making sense will help readability ? Have you better idea ?
Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm: Prepare for FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:35:35PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote: > @@ -2295,7 +2302,11 @@ static int wp_page_copy(struct vm_fault *vmf) > /* >* Re-check the pte - we dropped the lock >*/ > - vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->address, &vmf->ptl); > + if (!pte_map_lock(vmf)) { > + mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(new_page, memcg, false); > + ret = VM_FAULT_RETRY; > + goto oom_free_new; With the change, label is misleading. > + } > if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) { > if (old_page) { > if (!PageAnon(old_page)) { -- Kirill A. Shutemov