[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5081777A.8050104@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:53:30 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Linux kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: question on NUMA page migration
Hi Andrea, Peter,
I have a question on page refcounting in your NUMA
page migration code.
In Peter's case, I wonder why you introduce a new
MIGRATE_FAULT migration mode. If the normal page
migration / compaction logic can do without taking
an extra reference count, why does your code need it?
In Andrea's case, we have a comment suggesting an
extra refcount is needed, immediately followed by
a put_page:
/*
* Pin the head subpage at least until the first
* __isolate_lru_page succeeds (__isolate_lru_page pins it
* again when it succeeds). If we unpin before
* __isolate_lru_page successd, the page could be freed and
* reallocated out from under us. Thus our previous checks on
* the page, and the split_huge_page, would be worthless.
*
* We really only need to do this if "ret > 0" but it doesn't
* hurt to do it unconditionally as nobody can reference
* "page" anymore after this and so we can avoid an "if (ret >
* 0)" branch here.
*/
put_page(page);
This also confuses me.
If we do not need the extra refcount (and I do not
understand why NUMA migrate-on-fault needs one more
refcount than normal page migration), we can get
rid of the MIGRATE_FAULT mode.
If we do need the extra refcount, why is normal
page migration safe? :)
--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists