Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:12:17 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/migrate: Add new migration reason MR_HUGETLB
Message-Id: <20180131121217.4c80263d68a4ad4da7b170f0@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180131075852.GL21609@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180130030714.6790-1-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20180130075949.GN21609@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <b4bd6cda-a3b7-96dd-b634-d9b3670c1ecf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20180131075852.GL21609@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:58:52 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed 31-01-18 07:55:05, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On 01/30/2018 01:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 30-01-18 08:37:14, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > >> alloc_contig_range() initiates compaction and eventual migration for
> > >> the purpose of either CMA or HugeTLB allocation. At present, reason
> > >> code remains the same MR_CMA for either of those cases. Lets add a
> > >> new reason code which will differentiate the purpose of migration
> > >> as HugeTLB allocation instead.
> > > Why do we need it?
> > 
> > The same reason why we have MR_CMA (maybe some other ones as well) at
> > present, for reporting purpose through traces at the least. It just
> > seemed like same reason code is being used for two different purpose
> > of migration.
> 
> But do we have any real user asking for this kind of information?

It seems a reasonable cleanup: reusing MR_CMA for hugetlb just because
it happens to do the right thing is a bit hacky - the two things aren't
particularly related and a reader could be excused for feeling
confusion.

But the change seems incomplete:

> +		if (migratetype == MIGRATE_CMA)
> +			migrate_reason = MR_CMA;
> +		else
> +			migrate_reason = MR_HUGETLB;

If we're going to do this cleanup then shouldn't we go all the way and
add MIGRATE_HUGETLB?


Alternatively...  instead of adding MR_HUGETLB (and perhaps
MIGRATE_HUGETLB), can we identify what characteristics these two things
have in common and invent a new, more generic identifier?  So that both
migrate-for-CMA and migrate-for-HUGETLB will use MIGRATE_NEWNAME and
MR_NEWNAME?