Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] mm/page_alloc: fix incorrect isolation behavior by rechecking migratetype

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 09/15/2014 04:31 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 10:31:29AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/26/2014 10:08 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index f86023b..51e0d13 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -740,9 +740,15 @@ static void free_one_page(struct zone *zone,
  	if (nr_scanned)
  		__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_PAGES_SCANNED, -nr_scanned);

+	if (unlikely(has_isolate_pageblock(zone))) {
+		migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
+		if (is_migrate_isolate(migratetype))
+			goto skip_counting;
+	}
+	__mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1 << order, migratetype);
+
+skip_counting:

Here, wouldn't a simple 'else __mod_zone_freepage_state...' look
better than goto + label? (same for the following 2 patches). Or
does that generate worse code?

To remove goto label, we need two __mod_zone_freepage_state() like
as below. On my system, it doesn't generate worse code, but, I am not
sure that this is true if more logic would be added. I think that
goto + label is better.

Oh right, I missed that. It's a bit subtle, but I don't see a nicer solution right now.

+	if (unlikely(has_isolate_pageblock(zone))) {
+		migratetype = get_pfnblock_migratetype(page, pfn);
+               if (!is_migrate_isolate(migratetype))
+                       __mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1 << order, migratetype);
+       } else {
+               __mod_zone_freepage_state(zone, 1 << order, migratetype);
         }


Yeah that would be uglier I guess.

Anyway, What do you think which one is better, either v2 or v3? Still, v3? :)

Yeah v3 is much better than v1 was, and better for backporting than v2. The changelogs also look quite clear. The overhead shouldn't be bad with the per-zone flag guarding get_pfnblock_migratetype.

I'm just not sure about patch 4 and potentially leaving unmerged budies behind. How would it look if instead we made sure isolation works on whole MAX_ORDER blocks instead?

Vlastimil

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>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]