[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94bfa3cc-674e-25b0-e7e2-d74c970acef7@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:25:32 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: consider pfn holes after pfn_valid() in
__pageblock_pfn_to_page()
On 12.04.23 12:45, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Now the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used by set_zone_contiguous(),
> which checks whether the given zone contains holes, and uses pfn_valid()
> to check if the end pfn is valid. However pfn_valid() can not make sure
> the end pfn is not a hole if the size of a pageblock is larger than the
> size of a sub-mem_section, since the struct page getting by pfn_to_page()
> may represent a hole or an unusable page frame, which may cause incorrect
> zone contiguous is set.
>
> Though another user of pageblock_pfn_to_page() in compaction seems work
> well now, it is better to avoid scanning or touching these offline pfns.
> So like commit 2d070eab2e82 ("mm: consider zone which is not fully
> populated to have holes"), we should also use pfn_to_online_page() for
> the end pfn to make sure it is a valid pfn with usable page frame.
> Meanwhile the pfn_valid() for end pfn can be dropped now.
>
> Moreover we've already used pfn_to_online_page() for start pfn to make
> sure it is online and valid, so the pfn_valid() for the start pfn is
> unnecessary, drop it.
pageblocks are supposed to fall into a single memory section, so in most
cases, if the start is online, so is the end.
The exception to this rule is when we have a mixture of ZONE_DEVICE and
ZONE_* within the same section.
Then, indeed the end might not be online.
BUT, if the end is valid (-> ZONE_DEVICE), then the zone_id will differ.
[let's ignore any races for now, up to this point they are mostly of
theoretical nature]
So I don't think this change actually fixes something.
Getting rid of the pfn_valid(start_pfn) makes sense. Replacing the
pfn_valid(end_pfn) by a pfn_to_online_page(end_pfn) could make that
function less efficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index d0eb280ec7e4..8076f519c572 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1512,9 +1512,6 @@ struct page *__pageblock_pfn_to_page(unsigned long start_pfn,
> /* end_pfn is one past the range we are checking */
> end_pfn--;
>
> - if (!pfn_valid(start_pfn) || !pfn_valid(end_pfn))
> - return NULL;
> -
> start_page = pfn_to_online_page(start_pfn);
> if (!start_page)
> return NULL;
> @@ -1522,7 +1519,9 @@ struct page *__pageblock_pfn_to_page(unsigned long start_pfn,
> if (page_zone(start_page) != zone)
> return NULL;
>
> - end_page = pfn_to_page(end_pfn);
> + end_page = pfn_to_online_page(end_pfn);
> + if (!end_page)
> + return NULL;
>
> /* This gives a shorter code than deriving page_zone(end_page) */
> if (page_zone_id(start_page) != page_zone_id(end_page))
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists