[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvzaXeRox/9fqfdW@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 09:09:01 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Sierra Guiza, Alejandro (Alex)" <alex.sierra@....com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm/gup.c: Refactor
check_and_migrate_movable_pages()
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 12:01:58PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 03:29:20PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >
> >> >> +static long check_and_migrate_movable_pages(unsigned long nr_pages,
> >> >> + struct page **pages)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + int ret;
> >> >> + unsigned long collected;
> >> >> + LIST_HEAD(movable_page_list);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + collected = collect_longterm_unpinnable_pages(&movable_page_list, nr_pages, pages);
> >> >> + if (!collected)
> >> >> + return 0;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + ret = migrate_longterm_unpinnable_pages(&movable_page_list, nr_pages, pages);
> >> >> + if (!ret)
> >> >> + return -EAGAIN;
> >> >> + else
> >> >> + return ret;
> >> >
> >> > I would drop the else path and just return zero
> >>
> >> Unless I've misunderstood you I don't think that's correct though.
> >> check_and_migrate_movable_pages() needs to return one of 3 conditions:
> >>
> >> - 0: All pages are in the correct zone and are still pinned (ie. "success").
> >> - -EAGAIN: Some pages were migrated, all pages need re-pinning.
> >> - errno: Migration failed, pins were dropped and PUP should fail.
> >>
> >> John's suggested comment update spells this out more clearly.
> >
> > But that is not what it does..
> >
> > if (!ret) == if (ret != 0)
>
> Huh? Unless I'm misinterpretting you or am really behind on coffee
> if (!ret) is equivalent to if (ret == 0), not if (ret != 0).
Oh Dear, maybe I am still a bit jetlagged
Regardless, it is confusingly written :)
Sorry,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists