From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_owner: set correct gfp_mask on page_owner
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:54:13 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720115352.GA13474@bgram> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55ACDB3B.8010607@suse.cz>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 01:27:55PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 02:06 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:33:59PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>@@ -2003,7 +2005,7 @@ int __isolate_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> >> zone->free_area[order].nr_free--;
> >> rmv_page_order(page);
> >>
> >>- set_page_owner(page, order, 0);
> >>+ set_page_owner(page, order, __GFP_MOVABLE);
> >
> >It seems the reason why __GFP_MOVABLE is okay is that __isolate_free_page
> >works on a free page on MIGRATE_MOVABLE|MIGRATE_CMA's pageblock. But if we
> >break the assumption in future, here is broken again?
>
> I didn't study the page owner code yet and I'm catching up after
> vacation, but I share your concern. But I don't think the
> correctness depends on the pageblock we are isolating from. I think
> the assumption is that the isolated freepage will be used as a
> target for migration, and that only movable pages can be
> successfully migrated (but also CMA pages, and that information can
> be lost?). However there are also efforts to allow migrate e.g.
> driver pages that won't be marked as movable. And I'm not sure which
> migratetype are balloon pages which already have special migration
> code.
I am one of people who want to migrate driver pages from compaction
from zram point of view so I agree with you.
However, If I make zram support migratepages, I will use __GFP_MOVABLE.
So, I'm not sure there is any special driver that it can support migrate
via migratepage but it doesn't set __GFP_MOVABLE.
Having said that, I support your opinion because __GFP_MOVABLE is not
only gfp mask for allocating so we should take care of complete gfp
mask from original page.
>
> So what I would think (without knowing all details) that the page
> owner info should be transferred during page migration with all the
> other flags, and shouldn't concern __isolate_free_page() at all?
>
I agree.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_owner: set correct gfp_mask on page_owner
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:54:13 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720115352.GA13474@bgram> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55ACDB3B.8010607@suse.cz>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 01:27:55PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 02:06 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:33:59PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>@@ -2003,7 +2005,7 @@ int __isolate_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> >> zone->free_area[order].nr_free--;
> >> rmv_page_order(page);
> >>
> >>- set_page_owner(page, order, 0);
> >>+ set_page_owner(page, order, __GFP_MOVABLE);
> >
> >It seems the reason why __GFP_MOVABLE is okay is that __isolate_free_page
> >works on a free page on MIGRATE_MOVABLE|MIGRATE_CMA's pageblock. But if we
> >break the assumption in future, here is broken again?
>
> I didn't study the page owner code yet and I'm catching up after
> vacation, but I share your concern. But I don't think the
> correctness depends on the pageblock we are isolating from. I think
> the assumption is that the isolated freepage will be used as a
> target for migration, and that only movable pages can be
> successfully migrated (but also CMA pages, and that information can
> be lost?). However there are also efforts to allow migrate e.g.
> driver pages that won't be marked as movable. And I'm not sure which
> migratetype are balloon pages which already have special migration
> code.
I am one of people who want to migrate driver pages from compaction
from zram point of view so I agree with you.
However, If I make zram support migratepages, I will use __GFP_MOVABLE.
So, I'm not sure there is any special driver that it can support migrate
via migratepage but it doesn't set __GFP_MOVABLE.
Having said that, I support your opinion because __GFP_MOVABLE is not
only gfp mask for allocating so we should take care of complete gfp
mask from original page.
>
> So what I would think (without knowing all details) that the page
> owner info should be transferred during page migration with all the
> other flags, and shouldn't concern __isolate_free_page() at all?
>
I agree.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-15 6:33 [PATCH 1/2] mm/page_owner: fix possible access violation Joonsoo Kim
2015-07-15 6:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-07-15 6:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_owner: set correct gfp_mask on page_owner Joonsoo Kim
2015-07-15 6:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-07-16 0:06 ` Minchan Kim
2015-07-16 0:06 ` Minchan Kim
2015-07-20 11:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-07-20 11:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-07-20 11:54 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2015-07-20 11:54 ` Minchan Kim
2015-07-23 5:21 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-07-23 5:21 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-07-15 23:53 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/page_owner: fix possible access violation Minchan Kim
2015-07-15 23:53 ` Minchan Kim
2015-07-23 5:11 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-07-23 5:11 ` Joonsoo Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150720115352.GA13474@bgram \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.