-
由 KOSAKI Motohiro 提交于
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: NKOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: NHugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
bd775c42