[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2bc277c4-4257-c6cb-2e37-ee5de985410b@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:36:07 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
John Einar Reitan <john.reitan@...s.arm.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH v6v2 02/12] mm: migrate: support non-lru movable page
migration
On 05/30/2016 03:39 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> After isolation, VM calls migratepage of driver with isolated page.
> The function of migratepage is to move content of the old page to new page
> and set up fields of struct page newpage. Keep in mind that you should
> clear PG_movable of oldpage via __ClearPageMovable under page_lock if you
> migrated the oldpage successfully and returns 0.
This "clear PG_movable" is one of the reasons I was confused about what
__ClearPageMovable() really does. There's no actual "PG_movable" page
flag and the function doesn't clear even the actual mapping flag :) Also
same thing in the Documentation/ part.
Something like "... you should indicate to the VM that the oldpage is no
longer movable via __ClearPageMovable() ..."?
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -81,6 +81,39 @@ static inline bool migrate_async_suitable(int migratetype)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPACTION
>
> +int PageMovable(struct page *page)
> +{
> + struct address_space *mapping;
> +
> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(page), page);
> + if (!__PageMovable(page))
> + return 0;
> +
> + mapping = page_mapping(page);
> + if (mapping && mapping->a_ops && mapping->a_ops->isolate_page)
> + return 1;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(PageMovable);
> +
> +void __SetPageMovable(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping)
> +{
> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(page), page);
> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE((unsigned long)mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_MOVABLE, page);
> + page->mapping = (void *)((unsigned long)mapping | PAGE_MAPPING_MOVABLE);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__SetPageMovable);
> +
> +void __ClearPageMovable(struct page *page)
> +{
> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(page), page);
> + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageMovable(page), page);
> + page->mapping = (void *)((unsigned long)page->mapping &
> + PAGE_MAPPING_MOVABLE);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__ClearPageMovable);
The second confusing thing is that the function is named
__ClearPageMovable(), but what it really clears is the mapping pointer,
which is not at all the opposite of what __SetPageMovable() does.
I know it's explained in the documentation, but it also deserves a
comment here so it doesn't confuse everyone who looks at it.
Even better would be a less confusing name for the function, but I can't
offer one right now.
> diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
> index 917e0e3d0f8e..b756ee36f7f0 100644
> --- a/mm/util.c
> +++ b/mm/util.c
> @@ -399,10 +399,12 @@ struct address_space *page_mapping(struct page *page)
> }
>
> mapping = page->mapping;
I'd probably use READ_ONCE() here to be safe. Not all callers are under
page lock?
> - if ((unsigned long)mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS)
> + if ((unsigned long)mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_ANON)
> return NULL;
> - return mapping;
> +
> + return (void *)((unsigned long)mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS);
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_mapping);
>
> /* Slow path of page_mapcount() for compound pages */
> int __page_mapcount(struct page *page)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists