On 2022/3/29 8:45, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 03:23:49PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/3/28 9:08, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Hi, Wei,
>>>
>>> Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> wakeup_kswapd() only wake up kswapd when the zone is managed.
>>>>
>>>> For two callers of wakeup_kswapd(), they are node perspective.
>>>>
>>>> * wake_all_kswapds
>>>> * numamigrate_isolate_page
>>>>
>>>> If we picked up a !managed zone, this is not we expected.
>>>>
>>>> This patch makes sure we pick up a managed zone for wakeup_kswapd().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/migrate.c | 2 +-
>>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++
>>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> index 3d60823afd2d..c4b654c0bdf0 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> @@ -2046,7 +2046,7 @@ static int numamigrate_isolate_page(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct page *page)
>>>> if (!(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING))
>>>> return 0;
>>>> for (z = pgdat->nr_zones - 1; z >= 0; z--) {
>>>> - if (populated_zone(pgdat->node_zones + z))
>>>> + if (managed_zone(pgdat->node_zones + z))
>>>
>>> This looks good to me! Thanks! It seems that we can replace
>>> populated_zone() in migrate_balanced_pgdat() too. Right?
>>
>> This patch looks good to me too. Thanks!
>>
>> BTW: This makes me remember the bewilderment when I read the relevant code.
>> It's very kind of you if you could tell me the difference between
>> managed_zone and populated_zone. IIUC, when the caller relies on the
>
> The difference is managed_zone means the zone has pages managed by buddy,
> while populated_zone means the zone has pages but may be reserved.
That's just what I understand. Thanks. :)
>
>> activity from buddy system, managed_zone should always be used. I think
>> there're many places like compaction need to use managed_zone but
>> populated_zone is used now. They might need to change to use managed_zone
>> too. Or am I miss something?
>
> This thread comes from the read of commit 6aa303defb74, which adjust the
> vmscan code. It looks like there is some mis-use in compaction, but I didn't
> get time to go through it.
I see. Thanks for the work.
>
>>
>> Many Thanks. :)
>
