On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:53:35PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > The check '!PageBuddy(page) && page_count(page) == 0 && > > migratetype == MIGRATE_ISOLATE' would mean the page on free processing. > > Although it could go into buddy allocator within a short time, > > futher operation such as isolate_freepages_range() in CMA, called after > > test_page_isolated_in_pageblock(), could be failed due to this unstability > > since it requires that the page is on buddy. I think that removing > > this unstability is good thing. > > Is that true in case of check_pages_isolated_cb ? Does that require > PageBuddy to be true ? I think so. > > > > > And, following patch makes isolated freepage has new status matched with > > this condition and this check is the obstacle to that change. So remove > > it. > > Can you quote the patch summary in the above case ? ie, something like > > And the followiing patch "mm/....." makes isolate freepage. > Okay. "mm/isolation: change pageblock isolation logic to fix freepage counting bugs" introduce PageIsolated() and mark freepages PageIsolated() during isolation. Those pages are !PageBuddy() and page_count() == 0. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>