Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:53:50 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, mst@redhat.com, mawilcox@microsoft.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org,
        david@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, aarcange@redhat.com, amit.shah@redhat.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, liliang.opensource@gmail.com,
        yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com, quan.xu@aliyun.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v13 4/5] mm: support reporting free page
 blocks
Message-ID: <20170810075350.GE23863@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1501742299-4369-1-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
 <1501742299-4369-5-git-send-email-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
 <20170803091151.GF12521@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <59895668.9090104@intel.com>
 <59895B71.7050709@intel.com>
 <20170810070517.GB23863@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <598C0D7A.9060909@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <598C0D7A.9060909@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2127
Lines: 55

On Thu 10-08-17 15:38:34, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 08/10/2017 03:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Tue 08-08-17 14:34:25, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>On 08/08/2017 02:12 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>>On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote:
> >>>>This is just too ugly and wrong actually. Never provide struct page
> >>>>pointers outside of the zone->lock. What I've had in mind was to simply
> >>>>walk free lists of the suitable order and call the callback for each
> >>>>one.
> >>>>Something as simple as
> >>>>
> >>>>    for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_ZONES; i++) {
> >>>>        struct zone *zone = &pgdat->node_zones[i];
> >>>>
> >>>>        if (!populated_zone(zone))
> >>>>            continue;
> >>>Can we directly use for_each_populated_zone(zone) here?
> >yes, my example couldn't because I was still assuming per-node API
> >
> >>>>spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> >>>>        for (order = min_order; order < MAX_ORDER; ++order) {
> >>>
> >>>This appears to be covered by for_each_migratetype_order(order, mt) below.
> >yes but
> >#define for_each_migratetype_order(order, type) \
> >	for (order = 0; order < MAX_ORDER; order++) \
> >		for (type = 0; type < MIGRATE_TYPES; type++)
> >
> >so you would have to skip orders < min_order
> 
> Yes, that's why we have a new macro
> 
> #define for_each_migratetype_order_decend(min_order, order, type) \
>  for (order = MAX_ORDER - 1; order < MAX_ORDER && order >= min_order; \
>  order--) \
>     for (type = 0; type < MIGRATE_TYPES; type++)
> 
> If you don't like the macro, we can also directly use it in the code.
> 
> I think it would be better to report the larger free page block first, since
> the callback has an opportunity (though just a theoretical possibility, good
> to
> take that into consideration if possible) to skip reporting the given free
> page
> block to the hypervisor as the ring gets full. Losing the small block is
> better
> than losing the larger one, in terms of the optimization work.

I see. But I think this is so specialized that opencoding the macro
would be easier to read.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs