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
