lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: migrate: fix an incorrect call of prep_transhuge_page()


Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 22-11-17 09:43:46, Zi Yan wrote:
>>
>> Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 22-11-17 09:54:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Mon 20-11-17 21:18:55, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/migrate.h b/include/linux/migrate.h
>>>>> index 895ec0c4942e..a2246cf670ba 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/migrate.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/migrate.h
>>>>> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static inline struct page *new_page_nodemask(struct page *page,
>>>>> new_page = __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_mask, order,
>>>>> preferred_nid, nodemask);
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (new_page && PageTransHuge(page))
>>>>> + if (new_page && PageTransHuge(new_page))
>>>>> prep_transhuge_page(new_page);
>>>> I would keep the two checks consistent. But that leads to a more
>>>> interesting question. new_page_nodemask does
>>>>
>>>> if (thp_migration_supported() && PageTransHuge(page)) {
>>>> order = HPAGE_PMD_ORDER;
>>>> gfp_mask |= GFP_TRANSHUGE;
>>>> }
>>> And one more question/note. Why do we need thp_migration_supported
>>> in the first place? 9c670ea37947 ("mm: thp: introduce
>>> CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION") says
>>> : Introduce CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION to limit thp migration
>>> : functionality to x86_64, which should be safer at the first step.
>>>
>>> but why is unsafe to enable the feature on other arches which support
>>> THP? Is there any plan to do the next step and remove this config
>>> option?
>> Because different architectures have their own way of specifying a swap
>> entry. This means, to support THP migration, each architecture needs to
>> add its own __pmd_to_swp_entry() and __swp_entry_to_pmd(), which are
>> used for arch-independent pmd_to_swp_entry() and swp_entry_to_pmd().
>
> I understand that part. But this smells like a matter of coding, no?
> I was suprised to see the note about safety which didn't make much sense
> to me.

And testing as well. I had powerpc book3s support in my initial patch
submission, but removed it because I do not have access to the powerpc
machine any more. I also tried ARM64, which seems working by adding the
code, but I have no hardware to test it now.

Any suggestions?

--
Best Regards,
Yan Zi

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-22 16:09    [W:0.059 / U:6.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site