mm: add comment why mark_page_accessed() would be better than pte_mkyoung() in follow_page()
At first look, mark_page_accessed() in follow_page() seems a bit strange.
It seems pte_mkyoung() would be better consistent with other kernel code.
However, it is intentional. The commit log said:
------------------------------------------------
commit 9e45f61d69be9024a2e6bef3831fb04d90fac7a8
Author: akpm <akpm>
Date: Fri Aug 15 07:24:59 2003 +0000
[PATCH] Use mark_page_accessed() in follow_page()
Touching a page via follow_page() counts as a reference so we should be
either setting the referenced bit in the pte or running mark_page_accessed().
Altering the pte is tricky because we haven't implemented an atomic
pte_mkyoung(). And mark_page_accessed() is better anyway because it has more
aging state: it can move the page onto the active list.
BKrev: 3f3c8acbplT8FbwBVGtth7QmnqWkIw
------------------------------------------------
The atomic issue is still true nowadays. adding comment help to understand
code intention and it would be better.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: clarify text]
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 0017111..5b4ad5e 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -1151,6 +1151,11 @@
if ((flags & FOLL_WRITE) &&
!pte_dirty(pte) && !PageDirty(page))
set_page_dirty(page);
+ /*
+ * pte_mkyoung() would be more correct here, but atomic care
+ * is needed to avoid losing the dirty bit: it is easier to use
+ * mark_page_accessed().
+ */
mark_page_accessed(page);
}
unlock: