[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1374207224-agckpfwt-mutt-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:13:44 -0400
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] migrate: add hugepage migration code to
migrate_pages()
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:05:37AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Naoya Horiguchi
> <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> > This patch extends check_range() to handle vma with VM_HUGETLB set.
> > We will be able to migrate hugepage with migrate_pages(2) after
> > applying the enablement patch which comes later in this series.
> >
> > Note that for larger hugepages (covered by pud entries, 1GB for
> > x86_64 for example), we simply skip it now.
> >
> > Note that using pmd_huge/pud_huge assumes that hugepages are pointed to
> > by pmd/pud. This is not true in some architectures implementing hugepage
> > with other mechanisms like ia64, but it's OK because pmd_huge/pud_huge
> > simply return 0 in such arch and page walker simply ignores such hugepages.
> >
> > ChangeLog v3:
> > - revert introducing migrate_movable_pages
> > - use isolate_huge_page
> >
> > ChangeLog v2:
> > - remove unnecessary extern
> > - fix page table lock in check_hugetlb_pmd_range
> > - updated description and renamed patch title
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> > ---
> > mm/mempolicy.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git v3.11-rc1.orig/mm/mempolicy.c v3.11-rc1/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index 7431001..f3b65c0 100644
> > --- v3.11-rc1.orig/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ v3.11-rc1/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -512,6 +512,27 @@ static int check_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > return addr != end;
> > }
> >
> > +static void check_hugetlb_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > + const nodemask_t *nodes, unsigned long flags,
> > + void *private)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
> > + int nid;
> > + struct page *page;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
> > + page = pte_page(huge_ptep_get((pte_t *)pmd));
> > + nid = page_to_nid(page);
>
> Can you please add a brief comment for the if block?
Hmm, honestly saying, I just copied this complex if-condition from
check_pte_range() and opened migrate_page_add(), and refactored.
But this refactoring might not be good considering readability.
I will factorize duplicated logic into a single function and
add some comment to make it more readable.
Thanks,
Naoya
> > + if (node_isset(nid, *nodes) != !!(flags & MPOL_MF_INVERT)
> > + && ((flags & MPOL_MF_MOVE && page_mapcount(page) == 1)
> > + || flags & MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL))
> > + isolate_huge_page(page, private);
> > + spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
> > +#else
> > + BUG();
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline int check_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pud_t *pud,
> > unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> > const nodemask_t *nodes, unsigned long flags,
--
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