Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1589764857-6800-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1589764857-6800-4-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <3499673c-d103-bb69-5f38-8cce8e659a85@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <3499673c-d103-bb69-5f38-8cce8e659a85@oracle.com>
From:   Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 14:52:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4N7f5WbcJbhEdPq2W+6xOpdMR_5jDRU_3UmZK_VOBvZnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] mm/hugetlb: introduce alloc_control structure to
 simplify migration target allocation APIs
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2020=EB=85=84 5=EC=9B=94 22=EC=9D=BC (=EA=B8=88) =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 3:57, M=
ike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>=EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84=B1:
>
> On 5/17/20 6:20 PM, js1304@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> >
> > Currently, page allocation functions for migration requires some argume=
nts.
> > More worse, in the following patch, more argument will be needed to uni=
fy
> > the similar functions. To simplify them, in this patch, unified data
> > structure that controls allocation behaviour is introduced.
>
> As a followup to Roman's question and your answer about adding a suffix/p=
refix
> to the new structure.  It 'may' be a bit confusing as alloc_context is al=
ready
> defined and *ac is passsed around for page allocations.  Perhaps, this ne=
w
> structure could somehow have migrate in the name as it is all about alloc=
ating
> migrate targets?

I have considered that but I cannot find appropriate prefix. In hugetlb cod=
e,
struct alloc_control is passed to the internal function which is not
fully dedicated
to the migration so 'migrate' would not be appropriate prefix.

alloc_context is used by page allocation core and alloc_control would be us=
ed by
outside of it so I think that we can endure it. If there is a good
suggestion, I will change
the name happily.

> >
> > For clean-up, function declarations are re-ordered.
> >
> > Note that, gfp_mask handling on alloc_huge_page_(node|nodemask) is
> > slightly changed, from ASSIGN to OR. It's safe since caller of these
> > functions doesn't pass extra gfp_mask except htlb_alloc_mask().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
>
> Patch makes sense.

Thanks!

> > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > index a298a8c..94d2386 100644
> > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > @@ -1526,10 +1526,15 @@ struct page *new_page_nodemask(struct page *pag=
e,
> >       unsigned int order =3D 0;
> >       struct page *new_page =3D NULL;
> >
> > -     if (PageHuge(page))
> > -             return alloc_huge_page_nodemask(
> > -                             page_hstate(compound_head(page)),
> > -                             preferred_nid, nodemask);
> > +     if (PageHuge(page)) {
> > +             struct hstate *h =3D page_hstate(page);
>
> I assume the removal of compound_head(page) was intentional?  Just asking
> because PageHuge will look at head page while page_hstate will not.  So,
> if passed a non-head page things could go bad.

I was thinking that page_hstate() can handle the tail page but it seems tha=
t
it's not. Thanks for correction. I will change it on next version.

Thanks.