[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99dabd49-16c7-2858-e502-1bb390e13859@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 09:53:03 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jgowans@...zon.com>,
<yuzhao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm: compaction: convert to use a folio in
isolate_migratepages_block()
On 2023/6/12 22:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:34:13PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> @@ -959,7 +960,8 @@ isolate_migratepages_block(struct compact_control *cc, unsigned long low_pfn,
>> * Hugepage was successfully isolated and placed
>> * on the cc->migratepages list.
>> */
>> - low_pfn += compound_nr(page) - 1;
>> + folio = page_folio(page);
>> + low_pfn += folio_nr_pages(folio) - 1;
>> goto isolate_success_no_list;
>
> Why is this safe? That is, how do we know that the folio can't be
> dissolved under us at this point, then reallocated and hit the
> VM_BUG_ON_PGFLAGS(PageTail(page), page) in folio_flags() when we
> test folio_test_large()?
This is successfully isolated path, after isolate_hugetlb(), the folio
reference is incremented, so I think the folio can't be dissolved here,
correct me if I am wrong.
>
>> @@ -1132,30 +1137,30 @@ isolate_migratepages_block(struct compact_control *cc, unsigned long low_pfn,
>> * and it's on LRU. It can only be a THP so the order
>> * is safe to read and it's 0 for tail pages.
>> */
>
> ^^^ This comment needs to be updated too.
will update
>
>> - mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(page),
>> - NR_ISOLATED_ANON + page_is_file_lru(page),
>> - thp_nr_pages(page));
>> + lruvec_del_folio(lruvec, folio);
>> + mod_node_page_state(folio_pgdat(folio),
>> + NR_ISOLATED_ANON + folio_is_file_lru(folio),
>> + folio_nr_pages(folio));
>
> node_stat_mod_folio()
> ok
Thanks
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists