[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5422C772.3080700@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:30:26 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
t.stanislaws@...sung.com, Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] mm/page_alloc: fix incorrect isolation behavior
by rechecking migratetype
On 09/15/2014 04:31 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 08/26/2014 10:08 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> index f86023b..51e0d13 100644
>>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -740,9 +740,15 @@ static void free_one_page(struct zone *zone,
>>> if (nr_scanned)
>>> __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_PAGES_SCANNED, -nr_scanned);
>>>
>>> + if (unlikely(has_isolate_pageblock(zone))) {
>>> + migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
>>> + if (is_migrate_isolate(migratetype))
>>> + goto skip_counting;
>>> + }
>>> + __mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1 << order, migratetype);
>>> +
>>> +skip_counting:
>>
>> Here, wouldn't a simple 'else __mod_zone_freepage_state...' look
>> better than goto + label? (same for the following 2 patches). Or
>> does that generate worse code?
>
> To remove goto label, we need two __mod_zone_freepage_state() like
> as below. On my system, it doesn't generate worse code, but, I am not
> sure that this is true if more logic would be added. I think that
> goto + label is better.
Oh right, I missed that. It's a bit subtle, but I don't see a nicer
solution right now.
> + if (unlikely(has_isolate_pageblock(zone))) {
> + migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
> + if (!is_migrate_isolate(migratetype))
> + __mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1 << order, migratetype);
> + } else {
> + __mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1 << order, migratetype);
> }
>
Yeah that would be uglier I guess.
> Anyway, What do you think which one is better, either v2 or v3? Still, v3? :)
Yeah v3 is much better than v1 was, and better for backporting than v2.
The changelogs also look quite clear. The overhead shouldn't be bad with
the per-zone flag guarding get_pfnblock_migratetype.
I'm just not sure about patch 4 and potentially leaving unmerged budies
behind. How would it look if instead we made sure isolation works on
whole MAX_ORDER blocks instead?
Vlastimil
> Thanks.
>
--
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