Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:13:37 -0400 | | From | Rik van Riel <> | | Subject | Re: question on NUMA page migration |
| |
On 10/19/2012 12:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:53 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> >> If we do need the extra refcount, why is normal >> page migration safe? :) > > Its mostly a matter of how convoluted you make the code, regular page > migration is about as bad as you can get > > Normal does: > > follow_page(FOLL_GET) +1 > > isolate_lru_page() +1 > > put_page() -1 > > ending up with a page with a single reference (for anon, or one extra > each for the mapping and buffer).
Would it make sense to have the normal page migration code always work with the extra refcount, so we do not have to introduce a new MIGRATE_FAULT migration mode?
On the other hand, compaction does not take the extra reference...
Another alternative might be to do the put_page inside do_prot_none_numa(). That would be analogous to do_wp_page disposing of the old page for the caller.
I am not real happy about NUMA migration introducing its own migration mode...
-- All rights reversed
|  |