Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67633-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <25a80b95-93e6-4d68-a3b1-35cd3ef9c421@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 21:02:55 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] mm/compaction: add support for >0 order folio
 memory compaction.
Content-Language: en-US
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, "Yin, Fengwei"
 <fengwei.yin@intel.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
 "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
 Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
 Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, Rohan Puri
 <rohan.puri15@gmail.com>, Mcgrof Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
 Adam Manzanares <a.manzanares@samsung.com>,
 "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>
References: <20240214220420.1229173-1-zi.yan@sent.com>
 <20240214220420.1229173-3-zi.yan@sent.com>
 <6a011e7f-4e21-4e31-a9a2-52cba3181337@suse.cz>
 <CA1FC23E-A652-4DD9-8E79-4956B2E11921@nvidia.com>
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <CA1FC23E-A652-4DD9-8E79-4956B2E11921@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/15/24 18:32, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2024, at 11:57, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 
>> On 2/14/24 23:04, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> @@ -1849,10 +1857,22 @@ static struct folio *compaction_alloc(struct folio *src, unsigned long data)
>>>  static void compaction_free(struct folio *dst, unsigned long data)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct compact_control *cc = (struct compact_control *)data;
>>> +	int order = folio_order(dst);
>>> +	struct page *page = &dst->page;
>>> +
>>> +	if (folio_put_testzero(dst)) {
>>> +		free_pages_prepare_fpi_none(page, order);
>>> +
>>> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dst->lru);
>>
>> (is this even needed? I think the state of first parameter of list_add() is
>> never expected to be in particular state?)
> 
> There is a __list_add_valid() performing list corruption checks.

Yes, but dst->lru becomes "new" in list_add() and __list_add_valid() and
those never check the contents of new, i.e. new->next or new->prev. We could
have done list_del(&dst->lru) which puts poison values there and then a
list_add() is fine. So dst->lru does not need the init, it's just confusing.
Init is for the list's list_head, not for the list entry.

>>>
>>> -	list_add(&dst->lru, &cc->freepages);
>>> -	cc->nr_freepages++;
>>> -	cc->nr_migratepages += 1 << folio_order(dst);
>>> +		list_add(&dst->lru, &cc->freepages[order]);
>>> +		cc->nr_freepages += 1 << order;
>>> +		cc->nr_migratepages += 1 << order;
>>
>> Hm actually this increment of nr_migratepages should happen even if we lost
>> the free page.
> 
> Because compaction_free() indicates the page is not migrated and nr_migratepages
> should be increased regardless.

Yes.

> Will fix it. Thanks.
> 
>>> +	}
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * someone else has referenced the page, we cannot take it back to our
>>> +	 * free list.
>>> +	 */
>>>  }
> 
> 
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi