On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:47:06 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question.
>
> While writing memory unplug, I noticed this code.
> ==
> static int
> fixup_anon_page(pte_t *pte, unsigned long start, unsigned long end, void
> *priv)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma = priv;
> struct page *page = vm_normal_page(vma, start, *pte);
>
> if (page && PageAnon(page))
> page->index = linear_page_index(vma, start);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> static int fixup_anon_pages(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> struct mm_walk walk = {
> .pte_entry = fixup_anon_page,
> };
>
> return walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm,
> vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, &walk, vma);
> }
I assume the above is your code - it's not in the tree?
>
> I think that 'pte' passed to fixup_anon_page() by walk_page_range()
> is not guaranteed to be 'Present'.
yup - the pagewalker only checks for !pte_none().
> Then, vm_normal_page() will show print_bad_pte().
> If this never occur now, I'll add my own check code for memory migration by
> kernel here.
Yes, you'll need to perform additional filtering where appropriate.
> (Sorry, I can't find who should be CCed.)
Matt and David did most of the work here.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
