Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:04:29 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate_hugetlb() | From | Baolin Wang <> |
| |
On 2/16/2023 4:25 AM, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:39:36 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > >> Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not >> care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb() >> to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the >> hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider >> the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb(). >> >> No functional changes intended. >> >> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> >> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >> --- > [...] >> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 6 +++--- >> mm/hugetlb.c | 13 ++++++++----- >> mm/memory-failure.c | 2 +- >> mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +- >> mm/migrate.c | 7 +++---- >> 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> > [...] >> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c >> index 3a01a9dbf445..16513cd23d5d 100644 >> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c >> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c >> @@ -2925,13 +2925,16 @@ static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h, >> */ >> goto free_new; >> } else if (folio_ref_count(old_folio)) { >> + bool isolated; >> + >> /* >> * Someone has grabbed the folio, try to isolate it here. >> * Fail with -EBUSY if not possible. >> */ >> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock); >> - ret = isolate_hugetlb(old_folio, list); >> + isolated = isolate_hugetlb(old_folio, list); >> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock); >> + ret = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY; >> goto free_new; > > Nit. I'd personally prefer to set 'ret' before entering this critical section > to keep the section short, but this would be just a mean comment that wouldn't > worth request respin.
Yes, good catch. And I see Andrew has helped to do this (Thanks Andrew).
Thanks for reviewing.
| |