[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de0100e4-d673-428b-8d50-11ae2b7a9641@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:20:15 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: migrate: use a folio in add_page_for_migration()
Hi Zi Yan and Matthew and Naoya,
On 2023/8/4 13:54, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/8/4 10:42, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2023, at 21:45, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023/8/3 20:30, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 03:13:21PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>>>
...
>>>
>>>
>>> if (PageHuge(page)) // page must be a hugetlb page
>>> if (PageHead(page)) // page must be a head page, not tail
>>> isolate_hugetlb() // isolate the hugetlb page if head
>>>
>>> After using folio,
>>>
>>> if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) // only check folio is hugetlb or not
>>>
>>> I don't check the page is head or not, since the follow_page could
>>> return a sub-page, so the check PageHead need be retained, right?
>>
>> Right. It will prevent the kernel from trying to isolate the same
>> hugetlb page
>> twice when two pages are in the same hugetlb folio. But looking at the
>> code, if you try to isolate an already-isolated hugetlb folio,
>> isolate_hugetlb()
>> would return false, no error would show up. But it changes err value
>> from -EACCES to -EBUSY and user will see a different page status than
>> before.
>
Before e66f17ff7177 ("mm/hugetlb: take page table lock in
follow_huge_pmd()")
in v4.0, follow_page() will return NULL on tail page for Huagetlb page,
and move_pages() will return -ENOENT errno,but after that commit,
-EACCES is returned, which not match the manual,
>
> When check man[1], the current -EACCES is not right, -EBUSY is not
> precise but more suitable for this scenario,
>
> -EACCES
> The page is mapped by multiple processes and can be moved
> only if MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL is specified.
>
> -EBUSY The page is currently busy and cannot be moved. Try again
> later. This occurs if a page is undergoing I/O or another
> kernel subsystem is holding a reference to the page.
> -ENOENT
> The page is not present.
>
>>
>> I wonder why we do not have follow_folio() and returns -ENOENT error
>> pointer
>> when addr points to a non head page. It would make this patch more
>> folio if
>> follow_folio() can be used in place of follow_page(). One caveat is that
>> user will see -ENOENT instead of -EACCES after this change.
>>
>
> -ENOENT is ok, but maybe the man need to be updated too.
According to above analysis, -ENOENT is suitable when introduce the
follow_folio(), but when THP migrate support is introduced by
e8db67eb0ded ("mm: migrate: move_pages() supports thp migration") in
v4.14, the tail page will be turned into head page and return -EBUSY,
So should we unify errno(maybe use -ENOENT) about the tail page?
>
>
>
> [1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/move_pages.2.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists