Hi Andrew,
On 8/2/2023 8:39 PM, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 7/29/2023 1:24 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 00:13:54 +0800 Yin Fengwei fengwei.yin@intel.com wrote:
In madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() and madvise_free_pte_range(), folio_mapcount() is used to check whether the folio is shared. But it's not correct as folio_mapcount() returns total mapcount of large folio.
Use folio_estimated_sharers() here as the estimated number is enough.
What are the user-visible runtime effects of these changes?
(and please try to avoid using the same Subject: for different patches)
Can you hold on these patches to mm-unstable? I think we need to wait for David's work on folio_maybe_mapped_shared() and redo the fix base on that. Thanks and sorry for the noise.
Sorry for bothering you again for this patchset.
Let me explain the situation here: - The reason to hold on the patches to mm-unstable is that I don't want to promote the fix in this patch (using folio_estimated_sharers()). The correct way is waiting for folio_maybe_mapped_shared() from David.
Merging these patches motivate using folio_estimated_sharers() in other places. So once folio_maybe_mapped_shared() is ready, we need to replace folio_estimated_sharers() with folio_maybe_mapped_shared().
- For this specific patches, if they are suitable for stable, we may want to merge it (special for stable branch. I assume folio_maybe_mapped_shared() may not be back ported to stable branch).
So how do we deal with this situation? Thanks in advance.
Regards Yin, Fengwei
Regards Yin, Fengwei