On 04/04/2016 07:12 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 11:29:14PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Might have been better as a separate migration patch and then a
>> compaction patch. It's prefixed mm/compaction, but most changed are
>> in mm/migrate.c
>
> Indeed. The title is rather misleading but not sure it's a good idea
> to separate compaction and migration part.
Guess it's better to see the new functions together with its user after
all, OK.
> I will just resend to change the tile from "mm/compaction" to
> "mm/migration".
OK!
>> Also I'm a bit uncomfortable how isolate_movable_page() blindly expects that
>> page->mapping->a_ops->isolate_page exists for PageMovable() pages.
>> What if it's a false positive on a PG_reclaim page? Can we rely on
>> PG_reclaim always (and without races) implying PageLRU() so that we
>> don't even attempt isolate_movable_page()?
>
> For now, we shouldn't have such a false positive because PageMovable
> checks page->_mapcount == PAGE_MOVABLE_MAPCOUNT_VALUE as well as PG_movable
> under PG_lock.
>
> But I read your question about user-mapped drvier pages so we cannot
> use _mapcount anymore so I will find another thing. A option is this.
>
> static inline int PageMovable(struct page *page)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> struct address_space *mapping;
> struct address_space_operations *a_op;
>
> if (!test_bit(PG_movable, &(page->flags))
> goto out;
>
> mapping = page->mapping;
> if (!mapping)
> goto out;
>
> a_op = mapping->a_op;
> if (!aop)
> goto out;
> if (a_op->isolate_page)
> ret = 1;
> out:
> return ret;
>
> }
>
> It works under PG_lock but with this, we need trylock_page to peek
> whether it's movable non-lru or not for scanning pfn.
Hm I hoped that with READ_ONCE() we could do the peek safely without
trylock_page, if we use it only as a heuristic. But I guess it would
require at least RCU-level protection of the
page->mapping->a_op->isolate_page chain.
> For avoiding that, we need another function to peek which just checks
> PG_movable bit instead of all things.
>
>
> /*
> * If @page_locked is false, we cannot guarantee page->mapping's stability
> * so just the function checks with PG_movable which could be false positive
> * so caller should check it again under PG_lock to check
> a_ops->isolate_page.
> */
> static inline int PageMovable(struct page *page, bool page_locked)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> struct address_space *mapping;
> struct address_space_operations *a_op;
>
> if (!test_bit(PG_movable, &(page->flags))
> goto out;
>
> if (!page_locked) {
> ret = 1;
> goto out;
> }
>
> mapping = page->mapping;
> if (!mapping)
> goto out;
>
> a_op = mapping->a_op;
> if (!aop)
> goto out;
> if (a_op->isolate_page)
> ret = 1;
> out:
> return ret;
> }
I wouldn't put everything into single function, but create something
like __PageMovable() just for the unlocked peek. Unlike the
zone->lru_lock, we don't keep page_lock() across iterations in
isolate_migratepages_block(), as obviously each page has different lock.
So the page_locked parameter would be always passed as constant, and at
that point it's better to have separate functions.
So I guess the question is how many false positives from overlap with
PG_reclaim the scanner will hit if we give up on
PAGE_MOVABLE_MAPCOUNT_VALUE, as that will increase number of page locks
just to realize that it's not actual PageMovable() page...
> Thanks for detail review, Vlastimil!
> I will resend new versions after vacation in this week.
You're welcome, great!
