From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
Richard Chang <richardycc@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] mm/page_isolation: make page isolation a standalone bit.
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 14:11:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e9b85836-b4d9-4678-a59b-dbaf916fa1c5@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B21E6F5D-C824-4BB8-974D-A1BA313880EB@nvidia.com>
On 21.05.25 14:00, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 21 May 2025, at 7:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 21.05.25 13:16, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 19 May 2025, at 12:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION
>>>>>>> + if (flags & PB_migrate_isolate_bit)
>>>>>>> + return MIGRATE_ISOLATE;
>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you call get_pfnblock_flags_mask() with MIGRATETYPE_MASK, how could you ever get PB_migrate_isolate_bit?
>>>>>
>>>>> MIGRATETYPE_MASK is ((BIT(PB_migratetype_bits) - 1) | PB_migrate_isolate_bit),
>>>>> so it gets PB_migrate_isolate_bit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh ... that's confusing.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think what we should do is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Rename get_pfnblock_flags_mask() to get_pfnblock_flags()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Remove the mask parameter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Perform the masking in all callers.
>>>>>
>>>>> get_pfnblock_flags_mask() is also used by get_pageblock_skip() to
>>>>> get PB_migrate_skip. I do not think we want to include PB_migrate_skip
>>>>> in the mask to confuse readers.
>>>>
>>>> The masking will be handled in the caller.
>>>>
>>>> So get_pageblock_skip() would essentially do a
>>>>
>>>> return get_pfnblock_flags() & PB_migrate_skip_bit;
>>>>
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe, we should convert set_pfnblock_flags_mask() to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void set_clear_pfnblock_flags(struct page *page, unsigned long
>>>>>> set_flags, unsigned long clear_flags);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And better, splitting it up (or providing helpers)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> set_pfnblock_flags(struct page *page, unsigned long flags);
>>>>>> clear_pfnblock_flags(struct page *page, unsigned long flags);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This implies some more code cleanups first that make the code easier to extend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The same due to PB_migrate_skip.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on your suggestion, we could make {set,get}_pfnblock_flags_mask()
>>>>> internal APIs by prepending "__". They are only used by the new
>>>>> {get, set, clear}_pfnblock_flags() and {get, set, clear}_pageblock_{skip, isolate}().
>>>>> Then use {get, set, clear}_pfnblock_flags() for all migratetype operations.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> In general, lgtm. I just hope we can avoid the "_mask" part and just handle it in these functions directly?
>>>
>>> After implementing {get, set, clear}_pfnblock_flags(), I find that
>>> get_pfnblock_flags() is easy like you wrote above, but set and clear are not,
>>> since migratetype and skip/isolate bits are in the same word, meaning
>>> I will need to first read them out, change the field, then write them back.
>>
>> Like existing set_pfnblock_flags_mask() I guess, with the try_cmpxchg() loop.
>
> Are you saying I duplicate the code in set_pfnblock_flags_mask() to implement
> set_pfnblock_flags()? Or just replace set_pfnblock_flags_mask() entirely?
The latter as possible.
>
>>
>>> But it will cause inconsistency if there is a parallel writer to the same
>>> word. So for set and clear, mask is required.
>>>
>>> I can try to implement {get, set, clear}_pfnblock_bits(page,pfn, bits) to
>>> only handle standalone bits by using the given @bits as the mask and
>>> {set,get}_pageblock_migratetype() still use the mask.
>>
>> We'd still have to do the try_cmpxchg() when dealing with multiple bits, right?
>>
>> For single bits, we could just use set_bit() etc.
>
> Mel moved from set_bit() to try_cmpxchg() a word for performance reason. I am
> not sure we want to move back.
In e58469bafd05 we moved from multiple set_bit etc to a cmpxchange.
- for (; start_bitidx <= end_bitidx; start_bitidx++, value <<= 1)
- if (flags & value)
- __set_bit(bitidx + start_bitidx, bitmap);
- else
- __clear_bit(bitidx + start_bitidx, bitmap);
However, when only setting/clearing a single bit (e.g., isolated),
set_bit etc should be much cheaper.
For multiple bits, the existing try_cmpxchg should be kept IMHO.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-21 12:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-09 20:01 [PATCH v4 0/4] Make MIGRATE_ISOLATE a standalone bit Zi Yan
2025-05-09 20:01 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] mm/page_isolation: make page isolation " Zi Yan
2025-05-13 11:32 ` Brendan Jackman
2025-05-13 14:53 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-19 8:08 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-19 15:08 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-19 16:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-19 17:15 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-21 11:16 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-21 11:57 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-21 12:00 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-21 12:11 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2025-05-21 12:18 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-09 20:01 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] mm/page_isolation: remove migratetype from move_freepages_block_isolate() Zi Yan
2025-05-12 6:25 ` kernel test robot
2025-05-12 16:10 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-05-12 16:13 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-12 16:19 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-05-12 16:28 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-12 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2025-05-12 23:20 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-19 8:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-19 23:06 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-20 8:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-09 20:01 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] mm/page_isolation: remove migratetype from undo_isolate_page_range() Zi Yan
2025-05-09 20:01 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] mm/page_isolation: remove migratetype parameter from more functions Zi Yan
2025-05-17 20:21 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-05-18 0:07 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-18 16:32 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-05-18 17:24 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-17 20:26 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] Make MIGRATE_ISOLATE a standalone bit Vlastimil Babka
2025-05-18 0:20 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-19 14:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-19 14:35 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-20 8:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-20 13:18 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-20 13:20 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-20 13:31 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-20 13:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-20 14:07 ` Zi Yan
2025-05-19 7:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-19 14:01 ` Zi Yan
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=e9b85836-b4d9-4678-a59b-dbaf916fa1c5@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=richardycc@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).