Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] mm/page_isolation: drop WARN_ON_ONCE() in set_migratetype_isolate()

Baoquan He
2020-07-29T14:06:03Z

On 07/29/20 at 03:37pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 29.07.20 15:24, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 06/30/20 at 04:26pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> Inside has_unmovable_pages(), we have a comment describing how unmovable
> >> data could end up in ZONE_MOVABLE - via "movable_core". Also, besides
> > ~~~ 'movablecore'
> >> checking if the first page in the pageblock is reserved, we don't
> >> perform any further checks in case of ZONE_MOVABLE.
> >>
> >> In case of memory offlining, we set REPORT_FAILURE, properly
> >> dump_page() the page and handle the error gracefully.
> >> alloc_contig_pages() users currently never allocate from ZONE_MOVABLE.
> >> E.g., hugetlb uses alloc_contig_pages() for the allocation of gigantic
> >> pages only, which will never end up on the MOVABLE zone
> >> (see htlb_alloc_mask()).
> >>
> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> >> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> mm/page_isolation.c | 16 ++++++----------
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
> >> index 553b49a34cf71..02a01bff6b219 100644
> >> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
> >> @@ -58,16 +58,12 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> >> if (!ret) {
> >> drain_all_pages(zone);
> >> - } else {
> >> - WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
> >> -
> >> - if ((isol_flags & REPORT_FAILURE) && unmovable)
> >> - /*
> >> - * printk() with zone->lock held will likely trigger a
> >> - * lockdep splat, so defer it here.
> >> - */
> >> - dump_page(unmovable, "unmovable page");
> >> - }
> >> + } else if ((isol_flags & REPORT_FAILURE) && unmovable)
> >
> > This else if branch should be enclosed in brace?
> >
>
> Not necessarily. And it will be gone in the next patch in this series :)

OK, that's fine. Thanks.