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 S1758024AbcGKH01 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:26:27 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:35960 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757969AbcGKH0Z (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:26:25 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:24:17 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/3] mm/page_owner: track page free call chain
Message-ID: <20160711072417.GA524@swordfish>
References: <20160708121132.8253-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160708121132.8253-4-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160711062115.GC14107@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160711062115.GC14107@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (07/11/16 15:21), Joonsoo Kim wrote:
[..]
> > +void __page_owner_free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +	depot_stack_handle_t handle = save_stack(0);
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++) {
> > +		struct page_ext *page_ext = lookup_page_ext(page + i);
> > +
> > +		if (unlikely(!page_ext))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		page_ext->handles[PAGE_OWNER_HANDLE_FREE] = handle;
> > +		__set_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER_FREE, &page_ext->flags);
> > +		__clear_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER_ALLOC, &page_ext->flags);
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> I can't find any clear function to PAGE_EXT_OWNER_FREE. Isn't it
> intended? If so, why?

the PAGE_EXT_OWNER_FREE bit is not heavily used now. the
only place is this test in __dump_page_owner()

	if (!test_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER_ALLOC, &page_ext->flags) &&
			!test_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER_FREE, &page_ext->flags)) {
		pr_alert("page_owner info is not active (free page?)\n");
		return;
	}

other than that it's for symmetry/future use.

[..]
> > @@ -1073,6 +1073,9 @@ static void pagetypeinfo_showmixedcount_print(struct seq_file *m,
> >  			if (!test_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER_ALLOC, &page_ext->flags))
> >  				continue;
> >  
> > +			if (!test_bit(PAGE_EXT_OWNER_FREE, &page_ext->flags))
> > +				continue;
> > +
> 
> I don't think this line is correct. Above PAGE_EXT_OWNER_ALLOC
> check is to find allocated page.

you are right. that PAGE_EXT_OWNER_FREE test is wrong, indeed.
thanks for spotting.

	-ss