From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754956Ab1J1HVf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:21:35 -0400
Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:57352 "EHLO
	mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754215Ab1J1HVe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:21:34 -0400
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:21:25 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "aarcange@redhat.com" <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        mel <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/5]thp: correct order in lru list for split huge page
Message-ID: <20111028072102.GA6268@barrios-laptop.redhat.com>
References: <1319511577.22361.140.camel@sli10-conroe>
 <20111027231928.GB29407@barrios-laptop.redhat.com>
 <1319778538.22361.152.camel@sli10-conroe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1319778538.22361.152.camel@sli10-conroe>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 01:08:58PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 07:19 +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:59:37AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > If a huge page is split, all the subpages should live in lru list adjacently
> > > because they should be taken as a whole.
> > > In page split, with current code:
> > > a. if huge page is in lru list, the order is: page, page+HPAGE_PMD_NR-1,
> > > page + HPAGE_PMD_NR-2, ..., page + 1(in lru page reclaim order)
> > > b. otherwise, the order is: page, ..other pages.., page + 1, page + 2, ...(in
> > > lru page reclaim order). page + 1 ... page + HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1 are in the lru
> > > reclaim tail.
> > > 
> > > In case a, the order is wrong. In case b, page is isolated (to be reclaimed),
> > > but other tail pages will not soon.
> > > 
> > > With below patch:
> > > in case a, the order is: page, page + 1, ... page + HPAGE_PMD_NR-1(in lru page
> > > reclaim order).
> > > in case b, the order is: page + 1, ... page + HPAGE_PMD_NR-1 (in lru page reclaim
> > > order). The tail pages are in the lru reclaim head.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
> > 
> > In case of a, it doesn't matter ordering of subpages.
> > As a huge page, age of sub pages are same.
> It does matter. Hugepage is split first and then reclaim. if page, page
> +HPAGE_PMD_NR-1 is reclaimed, you can't get an order-1 page. but if
> page, page+1 is reclaimed, you can.

Right you are. I didn't catch up it.
It would be better to add it in description.
It's most important part in this patch.

Thanks.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim