Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mm/khugepaged: map dirty/writeback pages failures to EAGAIN

["Garg, Shivank" <shivankg@amd.com>]

On 11/20/2025 6:59 PM, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> On 11/20/25 13:24, Lance Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2025/11/20 16:17, Garg, Shivank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/20/2025 1:33 PM, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/11/25 12:20 pm, Shivank Garg wrote:
>>>
>>>> SCAN_PAGE_NOT_CLEAN is confusing - NOT_CLEAN literally means dirty, so why not SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY?
>>>> Or SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY_OR_UNDER_WRITEBACK? Since folio_test_writeback() is true as a result of
>>>> the folio being dirty, maybe just SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY can do.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>
>>> I chose not to use SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY because dirty and writeback have different meanings[1]:
>>>
>>>       Dirty: Memory that is waiting to be written back to disk
>>> Writeback: Memory that is actively being written back to disk
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
>>>
>>> IIUC, a page under writeback is no longer dirty, so using SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY would be misleading
>>> for pages in the writeback state.
>>>
>>> I considered SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY_OR_WRITEBACK initially but felt it was too long.
>>
>> Nit: If SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY_OR_WRITEBACK 
> 
> I would prefer that here.
> 

I agree on this. 
If the consensus is SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY_OR_WRITEBACK, I'll use it in v3.

Thanks,
Shivank