[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190624145453.u4ej3e4ktyyqjite@box>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:54:53 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"matthew.wilcox@...cle.com" <matthew.wilcox@...cle.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"william.kucharski@...cle.com" <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"hdanton@...a.com" <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] mm,thp: add read-only THP support for (non-shmem)
FS
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 02:42:13PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 2019, at 7:27 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 02:01:05PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> >>>> @@ -1392,6 +1403,23 @@ static void collapse_file(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >>>> result = SCAN_FAIL;
> >>>> goto xa_unlocked;
> >>>> }
> >>>> + } else if (!page || xa_is_value(page)) {
> >>>> + xas_unlock_irq(&xas);
> >>>> + page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping, &file->f_ra, file,
> >>>> + index, PAGE_SIZE);
> >>>> + lru_add_drain();
> >>>
> >>> Why?
> >>
> >> isolate_lru_page() is likely to fail if we don't drain the pagevecs.
> >
> > Please add a comment.
>
> Will do.
>
> >
> >>>> + page = find_lock_page(mapping, index);
> >>>> + if (unlikely(page == NULL)) {
> >>>> + result = SCAN_FAIL;
> >>>> + goto xa_unlocked;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + } else if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we should try wait_on_page_locked() here before give up?
> >>
> >> Are you referring to the "if (!PageUptodate(page))" case?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I think this case happens when another thread is reading the page in.
> I could not think of a way to trigger this condition for testing.
>
> On the other hand, with current logic, we will retry the page on the
> next scan, so I guess this is OK.
What I meant that calling wait_on_page_locked() on !PageUptodate() page
will likely make it up-to-date and we don't need to SCAN_FAIL the attempt.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists