Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Jun 2023 09:56:41 +0200 | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] Revert "mm/migrate: __unmap_and_move() push good newpage to LRU" |
| |
On 19.06.23 05:59, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 7:00 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, Yosry, >> >> Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> writes: >> >>> This reverts commit c3096e6782b733158bf34f6bbb4567808d4e0740. >>> >>> That commit made sure we immediately add the new page to the LRU before >>> remove_migration_ptes() is called in migrate_move_folio() (used to be >>> __unmap_and_move() back then), such that the rmap walk will rebuild the >>> correct mlock_count for the page again. This was needed because the >>> mlock_count was lost when the page is isolated. This is no longer the >>> case since mlock_count no longer overlays page->lru. >>> >>> Revert the commit (the code was foliated afterward the commit, so the >>> revert is updated as such). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> >>> --- >>> mm/migrate.c | 24 +++++++++--------------- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >>> index 01cac26a3127..68f693731865 100644 >>> --- a/mm/migrate.c >>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >>> @@ -1279,19 +1279,6 @@ static int migrate_folio_move(free_page_t put_new_page, unsigned long private, >>> if (unlikely(!is_lru)) >>> goto out_unlock_both; >> >> The patch itself looks good to me! Thanks! >> >> Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> > > Thanks for taking a look! > >> >> And, it seems that we can remove the above 2 lines and "out_unlock_both" >> label now. That can make the code simpler a little. Right? > > I am not familiar with this code. If we remove the above condition > then pages that have is_lru == 0 (i.e __PageMovable(src) is true) and > page_was_mapped == 1 will call remove_migration_ptes(). This wouldn't > happen without removing the above 2 lines. If this combination is > impossible (is_lru == 0 && page_was_mapped == 1), then yeah we can > remove the above condition. > > It looks like __SetPageMovable() is only called by zsmalloc, z3fold, > and balloon_page_insert(). The former 2 will never have those pages > mapped into userspace. I am not familiar with balloon_page_insert(), > but my gut feeling is that those are pages used by the driver and are > also not mapped into userspace.
On XEN, there is xen_alloc_ballooned_pages(), which ends up mapping balloon-inflated pages into user space (for something like MMIO IIRC). But the XEN balloon does not use the balloon compaction framework, so __SetPageMovable() does not apply.
The other balloon_page_insert() users (VMware balloon, CMM, virtio-balloon) shouldn't be doing something like that.
-- Cheers,
David / dhildenb
| |