lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: question on NUMA page migration
On 10/19/2012 11:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Hi Andrea, Peter,
>
> I have a question on page refcounting in your NUMA
> page migration code.
>
> In Peter's case, I wonder why you introduce a new
> MIGRATE_FAULT migration mode. If the normal page
> migration / compaction logic can do without taking
> an extra reference count, why does your code need it?

Hi Rik van Riel,

This is which part of codes? Why I can't find MIGRATE_FAULT in latest
v3.7-rc2?

Regards,
Chen

>
> In Andrea's case, we have a comment suggesting an
> extra refcount is needed, immediately followed by
> a put_page:
>
> /*
> * Pin the head subpage at least until the first
> * __isolate_lru_page succeeds (__isolate_lru_page pins it
> * again when it succeeds). If we unpin before
> * __isolate_lru_page successd, the page could be freed and
> * reallocated out from under us. Thus our previous checks on
> * the page, and the split_huge_page, would be worthless.
> *
> * We really only need to do this if "ret > 0" but it doesn't
> * hurt to do it unconditionally as nobody can reference
> * "page" anymore after this and so we can avoid an "if (ret >
> * 0)" branch here.
> */
> put_page(page);
>
> This also confuses me.
>
> If we do not need the extra refcount (and I do not
> understand why NUMA migrate-on-fault needs one more
> refcount than normal page migration), we can get
> rid of the MIGRATE_FAULT mode.
>
> If we do need the extra refcount, why is normal
> page migration safe? :)
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-21 05:01    [W:0.069 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site