[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zc_Z1PT20tNlsiFf@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 21:55:32 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, apopple@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] mm/migrate_device: convert
__migrate_device_pages() to folios
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:13:18PM -0800, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
> Use migrate_pfn_to_folio() so we can work with folios directly in
> __migrate_device_pages().
i don't understand why this would be correct if we have multipage
folios.
> @@ -719,33 +719,29 @@ static void __migrate_device_pages(unsigned long *src_pfns,
> migrate->pgmap_owner);
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
> }
> - migrate_vma_insert_page(migrate, addr, newpage,
> + migrate_vma_insert_page(migrate, addr, &dst->page,
seems to me that a migration pfn is going to refer to a precise page.
now you're telling it to insert the head page of the folio. isn't this
wrong?
> @@ -753,13 +749,11 @@ static void __migrate_device_pages(unsigned long *src_pfns,
> continue;
> }
>
> - if (migrate && migrate->fault_page == page)
> - r = migrate_folio_extra(mapping, page_folio(newpage),
> - page_folio(page),
> - MIGRATE_SYNC_NO_COPY, 1);
> + if (migrate && migrate->fault_page == &src->page)
shouldn't this rather be "page_folio(migrate->fault_page) == src"?
ie we're looking for two pages from the same folio, rather than the page
being the same as the head page of the folio?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists