On 2022/5/9 12:21, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 11:24 AM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022/4/29 19:36, Muchun Song wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 09:27:22PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> We might fail to isolate huge page due to e.g. the page is under migration
>>>> which cleared HPageMigratable. So we should return -EBUSY in this case
>>>> rather than always return 1 which could confuse the user. Also we make
>>>> the prototype of isolate_huge_page consistent with isolate_lru_page to
>>>> improve the readability.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: e8db67eb0ded ("mm: migrate: move_pages() supports thp migration")
>>>> Suggested-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 6 +++---
>>>> mm/gup.c | 2 +-
>>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 11 +++++------
>>>> mm/memory-failure.c | 2 +-
>>>> mm/mempolicy.c | 2 +-
>>>> mm/migrate.c | 5 +++--
>>>> 6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>>> index 04f0186b089b..306d6ef3fa22 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>>> @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ bool hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long from, long to,
>>>> vm_flags_t vm_flags);
>>>> long hugetlb_unreserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long start, long end,
>>>> long freed);
>>>> -bool isolate_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
>>>> +int isolate_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
>>>> int get_hwpoison_huge_page(struct page *page, bool *hugetlb);
>>>> int get_huge_page_for_hwpoison(unsigned long pfn, int flags);
>>>> void putback_active_hugepage(struct page *page);
>>>> @@ -376,9 +376,9 @@ static inline pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>>> return NULL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static inline bool isolate_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>>>> +static inline int isolate_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>>>
>>> Since you already touched all the call sites, how about renaming this
>>> to hugetlb_isolate()? I've always felt that huge_page is not a
>>> straightforward and clear name since we also have another type of
>>> huge page (THP). I think hugetlb is more specific.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for late respond. This suggestion looks good to me. But is isolate_hugetlb more suitable?
>> This could make it more consistent with isolate_lru_page? What do you think?
>>
>
> There is also a function named folio_isolate_lru(). My initial consideration was
> making it consistent with folio_isolate_lru(). isolate_hugetlb looks good to me
> as well.
I see. Many thanks for your explanation. :)
>
> Thanks.
> .
>
