[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487730c6-423a-4a03-a668-9b9ff92a5cfb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 19:24:04 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, surenb@...gle.com,
mhocko@...e.com, jackmanb@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, ziy@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] page_alloc: allow migration of smaller hugepages
during contig_alloc.
On 20.10.25 19:06, Gregory Price wrote:
> We presently skip regions with hugepages entirely when trying to do
> contiguous page allocation. Instead, if hugepage migration is enabled,
> consider regions with hugepages smaller than the target contiguous
> allocation request as valid targets for allocation.
>
> Compaction `isolate_migrate_pages_block()` already expects requests
> with hugepages to originate from alloc_contig, and hugetlb code also
> does a migratable check when isolating in `folio_isolate_hugetlb()`.
>
> We add the migration check here to avoid calling compaction on a
> region if we know migration is not possible at all.
>
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 600d9e981c23..e0760eafe032 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -7048,8 +7048,14 @@ static bool pfn_range_valid_contig(struct zone *z, unsigned long start_pfn,
> if (PageReserved(page))
> return false;
>
> - if (PageHuge(page))
> - return false;
> + if (PageHuge(page)) {
> + struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
> +
> + /* Don't consider moving same size/larger pages */
> + if (!folio_test_hugetlb_migratable(folio) ||
> + (1 << folio_order(folio) >= nr_pages))
We have folio_nr_pages().
Do we really need the folio_hugetlb_migratable() check?
> + return false;
This code is completely racy. folio_nr_pages() should be fine AFAIKT (no
VM_WARN_ON() etc), not sure about folio_test_hugetlb_migratable().
If it becomes a problem we could do a snapshot_page() to take a snapshot
we can query.
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists