On 2024/1/22 22:36, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 08:57:06PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2024/1/21 10:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 02:57:29PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> {
>>>> - /* Soft offline could migrate non-LRU movable pages */
>>>> - if ((flags & MF_SOFT_OFFLINE) && __PageMovable(page))
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Soft offline could migrate non-LRU movable pages.
>>>> + * Note that page->mapping is overloaded with slab->slab_list or slabs
>>>> + * fields which might make slab pages appear like non-LRU movable pages.
>>>> + * So __PageMovable() has to be done after PageSlab() is checked.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if ((flags & MF_SOFT_OFFLINE) && !PageSlab(page) && __PageMovable(page))
>>>> return true;
>>>>
>>>> return PageLRU(page) || is_free_buddy_page(page);
>>>
>>> I think would make more sense as
>>>
>>> + if (PageSlab(page))
>>> + return false;
>>
>> Do you mean add PageSlab check above "if ((flags & MF_SOFT_OFFLINE) && __PageMovable(page))" block
>> so we don't need to add more comment?
>
> Yes, although not just that we don't need to add a comment.
> Fundamentally, if you see PageSlab, you don't need to test anything
> else, you know it's not migratable.
Yes, this really makes sense.
>
>> I have a concern that __PageMovable() seems unreliable now if we access page from random context.
>> This might introduce some potential problems. For example, offline_pages() might be stumped with
>> such pages without any progress until signal occurs IIUC:
>>
>> offline_pages
>> ..
>> do {
>> scan_movable_pages
>> if (__PageMovable(page)) -- It might be slab page here. ret will also be set to 0.
>> goto found;
>> do_migrate_range -- Failed to isolate slab page and retry.
>> } while (!ret) -- retry since ret is 0.
>>
>> There might be many similar scenes, but I haven't taken them more closely. Maybe these are
>> just dumb problems...
>
> Yep, lots of places are insufficiently careful about testing
> PageMovable. This will get fixed with memdescs, but we're a fair way
> from having memdescs ...
I believe memdescs will fix all these mess, but we might need to fix them before memdescs becoming ready as a compromise.
Thanks.
>
> .
>
