[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50818A41.7030909@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:13:37 -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: Re: question on NUMA page migration
On 10/19/2012 12:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:53 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> If we do need the extra refcount, why is normal
>> page migration safe? :)
>
> Its mostly a matter of how convoluted you make the code, regular page
> migration is about as bad as you can get
>
> Normal does:
>
> follow_page(FOLL_GET) +1
>
> isolate_lru_page() +1
>
> put_page() -1
>
> ending up with a page with a single reference (for anon, or one extra
> each for the mapping and buffer).
Would it make sense to have the normal page migration code always
work with the extra refcount, so we do not have to introduce a new
MIGRATE_FAULT migration mode?
On the other hand, compaction does not take the extra reference...
Another alternative might be to do the put_page inside
do_prot_none_numa(). That would be analogous to do_wp_page
disposing of the old page for the caller.
I am not real happy about NUMA migration introducing its own
migration mode...
--
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