On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:36:47PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2018, 20:20:17 CET schrieb zhangjun: > > Because the PagePrivate() in UBIFS is different meanings, > > ...has different meanings... > > I'll fix up that myself after applying your patch. No need to send a v3. > > > alloc_cma() will fail when one dirty page cache located in > > the type of MIGRATE_CMA > > > > If not adjust the 'extra_count' for dirty page, > > ubifs_migrate_page() -> migrate_page_move_mapping() will > > always return -EAGAIN for: > > expected_count += page_has_private(page) > > This causes the migration to fail until the page cache is cleaned > > > > In general, PagePrivate() indicates that buff_head is already bound > > to this page, and at the same time page_count() will also increase. > > But UBIFS set private flag when the cache is dirty, and page_count() > > not increase. > > Therefore, the expected_count of UBIFS is different from the general > > case. > > > > Signed-off-by: zhangjun <openzhangj@xxxxxxxxx> > > Fixes: 4ac1c17b2044 ("UBIFS: Implement ->migratepage()") > > > --- > > fs/ubifs/file.c | 11 ++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/file.c b/fs/ubifs/file.c > > index 1b78f2e..890dfce 100644 > > --- a/fs/ubifs/file.c > > +++ b/fs/ubifs/file.c > > @@ -1480,8 +1480,17 @@ static int ubifs_migrate_page(struct address_space *mapping, > > struct page *newpage, struct page *page, enum migrate_mode mode) > > { > > int rc; > > + int extra_count = 0; > > > > - rc = migrate_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page, NULL, mode, 0); > > + /* > > + * UBIFS uses PG_private as marker and does not raise the page counter. > > + * migrate_page_move_mapping() expects a incremented counter if > > + * PG_private is set. Therefore pass -1 as extra_count for this case. > > + */ > > + if (page_has_private(page)) > > + extra_count = -1; > > + rc = migrate_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page, > > + NULL, mode, extra_count); > > if (rc != MIGRATEPAGE_SUCCESS) > > return rc; > > > > Let's wait a few days to give Kirill a chance to review, then I'll apply the patch. I don't remmeber much context now... Could you remind me why ubifs doesn't take additional pin when sets PG_private? Migration is not the only place where the additional pin is implied. See all users of page_has_private() helper. Notably reclaim path. -- Kirill A. Shutemov ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/