On 2024/2/20 11:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:00:39 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The patch was based on top of my early version of this patchset, thus
uses "cc->nr_migratepages -= 1 << order;" and
"cc->nr_migratepages += 1 << order;", but now it is applied before
mine. The change should be "cc->nr_migratepages--;" and
"cc->nr_migratepages++;", respectively.
on nr_migratepages was based on this one, a better fixup
for it might be below. Since before my patchset, compaction only deals with
order-0 pages.
I don't understand what this means. The patchset you sent applies OK
to mm-unstable so what else is there to do?
Your above fixup to Baolin's patch needs to be changed to the patch below
and my "mm/compaction: add support for >0 order folio memory compaction" will
need to be adjusted accordingly to be applied on top.
Let me know if anything is unclear.
Hi Andrew,
To avoid conflicts, you can drop these two patches, and I will send a
new version with fixing the issue pointed by Vlastimilb on top of
"mm/compaction: add support for >0 order folio memory compaction".
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/commit/?h=mm-everything-2024-02-16-01-35&id=97f749c7c82f677f89bbf4f10de7816ce9b071fe
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/commit/?h=mm-everything-2024-02-16-01-35&id=ea87b0558293a5ad597bea606fe261f7b2650cda
Well I thought I'd fixed everything up 10 minutes ago. Please take a
look at next mm-unstable.
Sure. And I found a minor rebase error in the compaction_alloc()
function while Zi Yan's original patch is correct.
+ cc->nr_freepages -= 1 << order;
cc->nr_migratepages--;
-
- return dst;
+ return page_rmappable_folio(&dst->page);
}
should change to be:
cc->nr_migratepages -= 1 << order;
