On Tue 07-07-20 16:44:48, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
>
> There is a well-defined standard migration target callback. Use it
> directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memory-failure.c | 18 ++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 609d42b6..3b89804 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -1677,16 +1677,6 @@ int unpoison_memory(unsigned long pfn)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(unpoison_memory);
>
> -static struct page *new_page(struct page *p, unsigned long private)
> -{
> - struct migration_target_control mtc = {
> - .nid = page_to_nid(p),
> - .gfp_mask = GFP_USER | __GFP_MOVABLE | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL,
> - };
> -
> - return alloc_migration_target(p, (unsigned long)&mtc);
> -}
> -
> /*
> * Safely get reference count of an arbitrary page.
> * Returns 0 for a free page, -EIO for a zero refcount page
> @@ -1793,6 +1783,10 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page)
> const char *msg_page[] = {"page", "hugepage"};
> bool huge = PageHuge(page);
> LIST_HEAD(pagelist);
> + struct migration_target_control mtc = {
> + .nid = NUMA_NO_NODE,
> + .gfp_mask = GFP_USER | __GFP_MOVABLE | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL,
> + };
Is NUMA_NO_NODE really intended here? The original code has preferred to
stay on the same node. If this is intentional then the changelog should
be explicit about that.
>
> /*
> * Check PageHWPoison again inside page lock because PageHWPoison
> @@ -1829,8 +1823,8 @@ static int __soft_offline_page(struct page *page)
> }
>
> if (isolate_page(hpage, &pagelist)) {
> - ret = migrate_pages(&pagelist, new_page, NULL, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL,
> - MIGRATE_SYNC, MR_MEMORY_FAILURE);
> + ret = migrate_pages(&pagelist, alloc_migration_target, NULL,
> + (unsigned long)&mtc, MIGRATE_SYNC, MR_MEMORY_FAILURE);
> if (!ret) {
> bool release = !huge;
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
