Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] mm: page_isolation: check specified range for unmovable pages

From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Eric Ren <renzhengeek@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] mm: page_isolation: check specified range for unmovable pages
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 10:55:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7c311d4b2cd377cdc4f92bc9ccf6af1@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220119190623.1029355-4-zi.yan@sent.com>

On 2022-01-19 20:06, Zi Yan wrote:
> From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> 
> Enable set_migratetype_isolate() to check specified sub-range for
> unmovable pages during isolation. Page isolation is done
> at max(MAX_ORDER_NR_PAEGS, pageblock_nr_pages) granularity, but not all
> pages within that granularity are intended to be isolated. For example,
> alloc_contig_range(), which uses page isolation, allows ranges without
> alignment. This commit makes unmovable page check only look for
> interesting pages, so that page isolation can succeed for any
> non-overlapping ranges.

Hi Zi Yan,

I had to re-read this several times as I found this a bit misleading.
I was mainly confused by the fact that memory_hotplug does isolation on 
PAGES_PER_SECTION granularity, and reading the above seems to indicate 
that either do it at MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES or at pageblock_nr_pages 
granularity.

True is that start_isolate_page_range() expects the range to be 
pageblock aligned and works in pageblock_nr_pages chunks, but I do not 
think that is what you meant to say here.

Now, to the change itself, below:

> @@ -47,8 +51,8 @@ static struct page *has_unmovable_pages(struct zone
> *zone, struct page *page,
>  		return page;
>  	}
> 
> -	for (; iter < pageblock_nr_pages - offset; iter++) {
> -		page = pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
> +	for (pfn = first_pfn; pfn < last_pfn; pfn++) {

You already did pfn = first_pfn before.

>  /**
>   * start_isolate_page_range() - make page-allocation-type of range of 
> pages to
>   * be MIGRATE_ISOLATE.
> - * @start_pfn:		The lower PFN of the range to be isolated.
> - * @end_pfn:		The upper PFN of the range to be isolated.
> + * @start_pfn:		The lower PFN of the range to be checked for
> + *			possibility of isolation.
> + * @end_pfn:		The upper PFN of the range to be checked for
> + *			possibility of isolation.
> + * @isolate_start:		The lower PFN of the range to be isolated.
> + * @isolate_end:		The upper PFN of the range to be isolated.

So, what does "possibility" means here. I think this need to be 
clarified a bit better.

 From what you pointed out in the commit message I think what you are 
doing is:

- alloc_contig_range() gets a range to be isolated.
- then you pass two ranges to start_isolate_page_range()
   (start_pfn, end_pfn]: which is the unaligned range you got in 
alloc_contig_range()
   (isolate_start, isolate_end]: which got aligned to, let's say, to 
MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES

Now, most likely, (start_pfn, end_pfn] only covers a sub-range of 
(isolate_start, isolate_end], and that
sub-range is what you really want to isolate (so (start_pfn, end_pfn])?

If so, should not the names be reversed?

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs