Howdy Minchan,
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 07:03:33AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > +static inline bool is_balloon_page(struct page *page)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return (page->mapping == balloon_mapping) ? true : false;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > >
> > > What lock should it protect?
> > >
> > I'm afraid I didn't quite get what you meant by that question. If you were
> > referring to lock protection to the address_space balloon_mapping, we don't need
> > it. balloon_mapping, once initialized lives forever (as long as driver is
> > loaded, actually) as a static reference that just helps us on identifying pages
> > that are enlisted in a memory balloon as well as it keeps the callback pointers
> > to functions that will make those pages mobility magic happens.
>
> Thanks. That's what I want to know.
> If anyone(like me don't know of ballooning in detail) see this, it would be very helpful.
>
Good point! I'll make sure this explanation gets properly registered either at commit log or
at a comment along with balloon_mapping declaration, then.
> > > > + if (likely(PageLRU(page))) {
> > >
> > >
> > > We can't make sure it is likely because there might be so many pages for kernel.
> > >
> > I thought that by that far in codepath that would be the likelihood since most
> > pages of an ordinary workload will be at LRU lists. Following that idea, it
> > sounded neat to hint the compiler to not branch for that block. But, if in the
> > end that is just a "bad hint", I'll get rid of it right away.
>
> Yeb. I hope you remove this.
> If you want really, it should be separated patch because it's not related to your
> series.
>
That will be removed, then.
> > > > +/* __isolate_lru_page() counterpart for a ballooned page */
> > > > +bool isolate_balloon_page(struct page *page)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (WARN_ON(!is_balloon_page(page)))
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (likely(get_page_unless_zero(page))) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We can race against move_to_new_page() & __unmap_and_move().
> > > > + * If we stumble across a locked balloon page and succeed on
> > > > + * isolating it, the result tends to be disastrous.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (likely(trylock_page(page))) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * A ballooned page, by default, has just one refcount.
> > > > + * Prevent concurrent compaction threads from isolating
> > > > + * an already isolated balloon page.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (is_balloon_page(page) && (page_count(page) == 2)) {
> > > > + page->mapping->a_ops->invalidatepage(page, 0);
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you add more meaningful name wrapping raw invalidatepage?
> > > But I don't know what is proper name. ;)
> > >
> > If I understood you correctely, your suggestion is to add two extra callback
> > pointers to struct address_space_operations, instead of re-using those which are
> > already there, and are suitable for the mission. Is this really necessary? It
> > seems just like unecessary bloat to struct address_space_operations, IMHO.
>
> I meant this. :)
>
> void isolate_page_from_balloonlist(struct page* page)
> {
> page->mapping->a_ops->invalidatepage(page, 0);
> }
>
> if (is_balloon_page(page) && (page_count(page) == 2)) {
> isolate_page_from_balloonlist(page);
> }
>
Humm, my feelings on your approach here: just an unecessary indirection that
doesn't bring the desired code readability improvement.
If the header comment statement on balloon_mapping->a_ops is not clear enough
on those methods usage for ballooned pages:
.....
/*
* Balloon pages special page->mapping.
* users must properly allocate and initialize an instance of balloon_mapping,
* and set it as the page->mapping for balloon enlisted page instances.
*
* address_space_operations necessary methods for ballooned pages:
* .migratepage - used to perform balloon's page migration (as is)
* .invalidatepage - used to isolate a page from balloon's page list
* .freepage - used to reinsert an isolated page to balloon's page list
*/
struct address_space *balloon_mapping;
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(balloon_mapping);
.....
I can add an extra commentary, to recollect folks about that usage, next to the
points where those callbacks are used at isolate_balloon_page() &
putback_balloon_page(). What do you think?
> Thanks!
>
Thank you for such attention and valuable feedback! Have a nice weekend!
Rafael
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
