On 6/23/20 8:13 AM, js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
>
> There is a well-defined migration target allocation callback.
> It's mostly similar with new_non_cma_page() except considering CMA pages.
>
> This patch adds a CMA consideration to the standard migration target
> allocation callback and use it on gup.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
But a suggestion below.
> ---
> mm/gup.c | 57 ++++++++-------------------------------------------------
> mm/internal.h | 1 +
> mm/migrate.c | 4 +++-
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index 15be281..f6124e3 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -1608,56 +1608,15 @@ static bool check_dax_vmas(struct vm_area_struct **vmas, long nr_pages)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> -static struct page *new_non_cma_page(struct page *page, unsigned long private)
> +static struct page *alloc_migration_target_non_cma(struct page *page, unsigned long private)
> {
...
> + struct migration_target_control mtc = {
> + .nid = page_to_nid(page),
> + .gfp_mask = GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN,
> + .skip_cma = true,
> + };
>
> - return __alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp_mask, 0);
> + return alloc_migration_target(page, (unsigned long)&mtc);
Do we really need this wrapper? The only user is check_and_migrate_cma_pages so
just opencode it?
