On 15 Feb 2024, at 15:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 2/15/24 18:32, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2024, at 11:57, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/24 23:04, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>> @@ -1849,10 +1857,22 @@ static struct folio *compaction_alloc(struct folio *src, unsigned long data)
>>>> static void compaction_free(struct folio *dst, unsigned long data)
>>>> {
>>>> struct compact_control *cc = (struct compact_control *)data;
>>>> + int order = folio_order(dst);
>>>> + struct page *page = &dst->page;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (folio_put_testzero(dst)) {
>>>> + free_pages_prepare_fpi_none(page, order);
>>>> +
>>>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dst->lru);
>>>
>>> (is this even needed? I think the state of first parameter of list_add() is
>>> never expected to be in particular state?)
>>
>> There is a __list_add_valid() performing list corruption checks.
>
> Yes, but dst->lru becomes "new" in list_add() and __list_add_valid() and
> those never check the contents of new, i.e. new->next or new->prev. We could
> have done list_del(&dst->lru) which puts poison values there and then a
> list_add() is fine. So dst->lru does not need the init, it's just confusing.
> Init is for the list's list_head, not for the list entry.
Got it. Will remove it.
>>>>
>>>> - list_add(&dst->lru, &cc->freepages);
>>>> - cc->nr_freepages++;
>>>> - cc->nr_migratepages += 1 << folio_order(dst);
>>>> + list_add(&dst->lru, &cc->freepages[order]);
>>>> + cc->nr_freepages += 1 << order;
>>>> + cc->nr_migratepages += 1 << order;
>>>
>>> Hm actually this increment of nr_migratepages should happen even if we lost
>>> the free page.
>>
>> Because compaction_free() indicates the page is not migrated and nr_migratepages
>> should be increased regardless.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Will fix it. Thanks.
>>
>>>> + }
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * someone else has referenced the page, we cannot take it back to our
>>>> + * free list.
>>>> + */
>>>> }
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Yan, Zi
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
