lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/11] ksm: reorganize ksm_check_stable_tree
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Memory hotremove's ksm_check_stable_tree() is pitifully inefficient
> > (restarting whenever it finds a stale node to remove), but rearrange
> > so that at least it does not needlessly restart from nid 0 each time.
> > And add a couple of comments: here is why we keep pfn instead of page.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > ---
> > mm/ksm.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- mmotm.orig/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-25 14:36:52.152205940 -0800
> > +++ mmotm/mm/ksm.c 2013-01-25 14:36:53.244205966 -0800
> > @@ -1830,31 +1830,36 @@ void ksm_migrate_page(struct page *newpa
> > #endif /* CONFIG_MIGRATION */
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
> > -static struct stable_node *ksm_check_stable_tree(unsigned long start_pfn,
> > - unsigned long end_pfn)
> > +static void ksm_check_stable_tree(unsigned long start_pfn,
> > + unsigned long end_pfn)
> > {
> > + struct stable_node *stable_node;
> > struct rb_node *node;
> > int nid;
> >
> > - for (nid = 0; nid < nr_node_ids; nid++)
> > - for (node = rb_first(&root_stable_tree[nid]); node;
> > - node = rb_next(node)) {
> > - struct stable_node *stable_node;
> > -
> > + for (nid = 0; nid < nr_node_ids; nid++) {
> > + node = rb_first(&root_stable_tree[nid]);
> > + while (node) {
>
> This is not your fault, the old code is wrong too. It is assuming that all
> nodes are populated in numeric orders with no holes. It won't work if just
> two nodes 0 and 4 are online. It should be using for_each_online_node().

If the old code is wrong, it probably would be my fault! But I believe
this is okay: these rb_roots we're looking at, they are in memory which
is not being offlined, and the trees for offline nodes will simply be
empty, won't they? Something's badly wrong if otherwise.

I certainly prefer to avoid for_each_online_node() etc: maybe I'm
confusing with for_each_online_something_else(), but experience tells
that you can get into nasty hotplug mutex ordering issues with those
things - not worth the pain if you can easily and safely avoid them.

Hugh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-08 01:41    [W:0.165 / U:1.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site