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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm,thp,compaction,cma: allow THP migration for CMA
 allocations
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-team@fb.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        mhocko@kernel.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        rientjes@google.com, aarcange@redhat.com, ziy@nvidia.com
References: <cover.1582321646.git.riel@surriel.com>
 <20200227213238.1298752-2-riel@surriel.com>
 <df83c62f-209f-b1fd-3a5c-c81c82cb2606@oracle.com>
 <7800e98e3688c124ac3672284b87d67321e1c29e.camel@surriel.com>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Autocrypt: addr=vbabka@suse.cz; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 mQINBFZdmxYBEADsw/SiUSjB0dM+vSh95UkgcHjzEVBlby/Fg+g42O7LAEkCYXi/vvq31JTB
 KxRWDHX0R2tgpFDXHnzZcQywawu8eSq0LxzxFNYMvtB7sV1pxYwej2qx9B75qW2plBs+7+YB
 87tMFA+u+L4Z5xAzIimfLD5EKC56kJ1CsXlM8S/LHcmdD9Ctkn3trYDNnat0eoAcfPIP2OZ+
 9oe9IF/R28zmh0ifLXyJQQz5ofdj4bPf8ecEW0rhcqHfTD8k4yK0xxt3xW+6Exqp9n9bydiy
 tcSAw/TahjW6yrA+6JhSBv1v2tIm+itQc073zjSX8OFL51qQVzRFr7H2UQG33lw2QrvHRXqD
 Ot7ViKam7v0Ho9wEWiQOOZlHItOOXFphWb2yq3nzrKe45oWoSgkxKb97MVsQ+q2SYjJRBBH4
 8qKhphADYxkIP6yut/eaj9ImvRUZZRi0DTc8xfnvHGTjKbJzC2xpFcY0DQbZzuwsIZ8OPJCc
 LM4S7mT25NE5kUTG/TKQCk922vRdGVMoLA7dIQrgXnRXtyT61sg8PG4wcfOnuWf8577aXP1x
 6mzw3/jh3F+oSBHb/GcLC7mvWreJifUL2gEdssGfXhGWBo6zLS3qhgtwjay0Jl+kza1lo+Cv
 BB2T79D4WGdDuVa4eOrQ02TxqGN7G0Biz5ZLRSFzQSQwLn8fbwARAQABtCBWbGFzdGltaWwg
 QmFia2EgPHZiYWJrYUBzdXNlLmN6PokCVAQTAQoAPgIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkICwUWAgMBAAIe
 AQIXgBYhBKlA1DSZLC6OmRA9UCJPp+fMgqZkBQJcbbyGBQkH8VTqAAoJECJPp+fMgqZkpGoP
 /1jhVihakxw1d67kFhPgjWrbzaeAYOJu7Oi79D8BL8Vr5dmNPygbpGpJaCHACWp+10KXj9yz
 fWABs01KMHnZsAIUytVsQv35DMMDzgwVmnoEIRBhisMYOQlH2bBn/dqBjtnhs7zTL4xtqEcF
 1hoUFEByMOey7gm79utTk09hQE/Zo2x0Ikk98sSIKBETDCl4mkRVRlxPFl4O/w8dSaE4eczH
 LrKezaFiZOv6S1MUKVKzHInonrCqCNbXAHIeZa3JcXCYj1wWAjOt9R3NqcWsBGjFbkgoKMGD
 usiGabetmQjXNlVzyOYdAdrbpVRNVnaL91sB2j8LRD74snKsV0Wzwt90YHxDQ5z3M75YoIdl
 byTKu3BUuqZxkQ/emEuxZ7aRJ1Zw7cKo/IVqjWaQ1SSBDbZ8FAUPpHJxLdGxPRN8Pfw8blKY
 8mvLJKoF6i9T6+EmlyzxqzOFhcc4X5ig5uQoOjTIq6zhLO+nqVZvUDd2Kz9LMOCYb516cwS/
 Enpi0TcZ5ZobtLqEaL4rupjcJG418HFQ1qxC95u5FfNki+YTmu6ZLXy+1/9BDsPuZBOKYpUm
 3HWSnCS8J5Ny4SSwfYPH/JrtberWTcCP/8BHmoSpS/3oL3RxrZRRVnPHFzQC6L1oKvIuyXYF
 rkybPXYbmNHN+jTD3X8nRqo+4Qhmu6SHi3Vq
Message-ID: <67185d77-87aa-400d-475c-4435d8b7be11@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:25:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7800e98e3688c124ac3672284b87d67321e1c29e.camel@surriel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2/28/20 2:21 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 15:41 -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 2/27/20 1:32 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>
>>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>>> @@ -8253,14 +8253,19 @@ struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct
>>> zone *zone, struct page *page,
>>>  
>>>  		/*
>>>  		 * Hugepages are not in LRU lists, but they're movable.
>>> +		 * THPs are on the LRU, but need to be counted as
>>> #small pages.
>>>  		 * We need not scan over tail pages because we don't
>>>  		 * handle each tail page individually in migration.
>>>  		 */
>>> -		if (PageHuge(page)) {
>>> +		if (PageHuge(page) || PageTransCompound(page)) {
>>>  			struct page *head = compound_head(page);
>>>  			unsigned int skip_pages;
>>>  
>>> -			if
>>> (!hugepage_migration_supported(page_hstate(head)))
>>> +			if (PageHuge(page) &&
>>> +			    !hugepage_migration_supported(page_hstate(h
>>> ead)))
>>> +				return page;
>>> +
>>> +			if (!PageLRU(head) && !__PageMovable(head))
>>
>> Pretty sure this is going to be true for hugetlb pages.  So, this
>> will change
>> behavior and make all hugetlb pages look unmovable.  Perhaps, only
>> check this
>> condition for THP pages?

Oh right you are.

> Does that need to be the following, then?
> 
>      if (PageTransHuge(head) && !PageHuge(page) && !PageLRU(head) &&
> !__PageMovable(head))
>                  return page;

I would instead make it an "else if" to the "if (PageHuge(page)...)" above.

> That's an easy one liner I would be happy to send in
> if everybody agrees that should fix things :)
>