[PATCH v2 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation functions

[PATCH v2 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation functions

[Baolin Wang]

Now the page isolation functions did not return a boolean to indicate
success or not, instead it will return a negative error when failed
to isolate a page. So below code used in most places seem a boolean
success/failure thing, which can confuse people whether the isolation
is successful.

if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
        continue;

Moreover the page isolation functions only return 0 or -EBUSY, and
most users did not care about the negative error except for few users,
thus we can convert all page isolation functions to return a boolean
value, which can remove the confusion to make code more clear.

No functional changes intended in this patch series.

Changes from v1:
 - Convert all isolation functions to return bool.

Baolin Wang (4):
  mm: change to return bool for folio_isolate_lru()
  mm: change to return bool for isolate_lru_page()
  mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate_hugetlb()
  mm: change to return bool for isolate_movable_page()

 include/linux/hugetlb.h |  6 +++---
 include/linux/migrate.h |  6 +++---
 mm/compaction.c         |  2 +-
 mm/damon/paddr.c        |  2 +-
 mm/folio-compat.c       |  4 ++--
 mm/gup.c                |  2 +-
 mm/hugetlb.c            | 12 ++++++++----
 mm/internal.h           |  4 ++--
 mm/khugepaged.c         |  4 ++--
 mm/madvise.c            |  4 ++--
 mm/memcontrol.c         |  4 ++--
 mm/memory-failure.c     | 10 +++++-----
 mm/memory_hotplug.c     |  2 +-
 mm/mempolicy.c          |  4 ++--
 mm/migrate.c            | 17 ++++++++++-------
 mm/migrate_device.c     |  2 +-
 mm/vmscan.c             | 10 +++++-----
 17 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

-- 
2.27.0

[PATCH v2 1/4] mm: change to return bool for folio_isolate_lru()

[Baolin Wang]

Now the folio_isolate_lru() did not return a boolean value to indicate
isolation success or not, however below code checking the return value
can make people think that it was a boolean success/failure thing, which
makes people easy to make mistakes (see the fix patch[1]).

if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
	continue;

Thus it's better to check the negative error value expilictly returned by
folio_isolate_lru(), which makes code more clear per Linus's suggestion[2].
Moreover Matthew suggested we can convert the isolation functions to return
a boolean[3], since most users did not care about the negative error value,
and can also remove the confusing of checking return value.

So this patch converts the folio_isolate_lru() to return a boolean value,
which means return 'true' to indicate the folio isolation is successful, and
'false' means a failure to isolation. Meanwhile changing all users' logic of
checking the isolation state.

No functional changes intended.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230131063206.28820-1-Kuan-Ying.Lee@mediatek.com/T/#u
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiBrY+O-4=2mrbVyxR+hOqfdJ=Do6xoucfJ9_5az01L4Q@mail.gmail.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+sTFqwMNAjDvxw3@casper.infradead.org/

Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
---
 mm/damon/paddr.c  |  2 +-
 mm/folio-compat.c |  8 +++++++-
 mm/gup.c          |  2 +-
 mm/internal.h     |  2 +-
 mm/khugepaged.c   |  2 +-
 mm/madvise.c      |  4 ++--
 mm/mempolicy.c    |  2 +-
 mm/vmscan.c       | 10 +++++-----
 8 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/damon/paddr.c b/mm/damon/paddr.c
index b4df9b9bcc0a..607bb69e526c 100644
--- a/mm/damon/paddr.c
+++ b/mm/damon/paddr.c
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static unsigned long damon_pa_pageout(struct damon_region *r, struct damos *s)
 
 		folio_clear_referenced(folio);
 		folio_test_clear_young(folio);
-		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
+		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
 			folio_put(folio);
 			continue;
 		}
diff --git a/mm/folio-compat.c b/mm/folio-compat.c
index 18c48b557926..540373cf904e 100644
--- a/mm/folio-compat.c
+++ b/mm/folio-compat.c
@@ -115,9 +115,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(grab_cache_page_write_begin);
 
 int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
 {
+	bool ret;
+
 	if (WARN_RATELIMIT(PageTail(page), "trying to isolate tail page"))
 		return -EBUSY;
-	return folio_isolate_lru((struct folio *)page);
+	ret = folio_isolate_lru((struct folio *)page);
+	if (ret)
+		return 0;
+
+	return -EBUSY;
 }
 
 void putback_lru_page(struct page *page)
diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
index b0885f70579c..eab18ba045db 100644
--- a/mm/gup.c
+++ b/mm/gup.c
@@ -1939,7 +1939,7 @@ static unsigned long collect_longterm_unpinnable_pages(
 			drain_allow = false;
 		}
 
-		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
+		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio))
 			continue;
 
 		list_add_tail(&folio->lru, movable_page_list);
diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
index dfb37e94e140..8645e8496537 100644
--- a/mm/internal.h
+++ b/mm/internal.h
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ pgprot_t __init early_memremap_pgprot_adjust(resource_size_t phys_addr,
  * in mm/vmscan.c:
  */
 int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page);
-int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio);
+bool folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio);
 void putback_lru_page(struct page *page);
 void folio_putback_lru(struct folio *folio);
 extern void reclaim_throttle(pg_data_t *pgdat, enum vmscan_throttle_state reason);
diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index a5d32231bfad..cee659cfa3c1 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -2047,7 +2047,7 @@ static int collapse_file(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
 			goto out_unlock;
 		}
 
-		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
+		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
 			result = SCAN_DEL_PAGE_LRU;
 			goto out_unlock;
 		}
diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
index 5a5a687d03c2..c2202f51e9dd 100644
--- a/mm/madvise.c
+++ b/mm/madvise.c
@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
 		folio_clear_referenced(folio);
 		folio_test_clear_young(folio);
 		if (pageout) {
-			if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
+			if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
 				if (folio_test_unevictable(folio))
 					folio_putback_lru(folio);
 				else
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
 		folio_clear_referenced(folio);
 		folio_test_clear_young(folio);
 		if (pageout) {
-			if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
+			if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
 				if (folio_test_unevictable(folio))
 					folio_putback_lru(folio);
 				else
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 0919c7a719d4..2751bc3310fd 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1033,7 +1033,7 @@ static int migrate_folio_add(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *foliolist,
 	 * expensive, so check the estimated mapcount of the folio instead.
 	 */
 	if ((flags & MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL) || folio_estimated_sharers(folio) == 1) {
-		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
+		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
 			list_add_tail(&folio->lru, foliolist);
 			node_stat_mod_folio(folio,
 				NR_ISOLATED_ANON + folio_is_file_lru(folio),
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 34535bbd4fe9..7658b40df947 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2337,12 +2337,12 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
  * (2) The lru_lock must not be held.
  * (3) Interrupts must be enabled.
  *
- * Return: 0 if the folio was removed from an LRU list.
- * -EBUSY if the folio was not on an LRU list.
+ * Return: true if the folio was removed from an LRU list.
+ * false if the folio was not on an LRU list.
  */
-int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio)
+bool folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio)
 {
-	int ret = -EBUSY;
+	bool ret = false;
 
 	VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_ref_count(folio), folio);
 
@@ -2353,7 +2353,7 @@ int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio)
 		lruvec = folio_lruvec_lock_irq(folio);
 		lruvec_del_folio(lruvec, folio);
 		unlock_page_lruvec_irq(lruvec);
-		ret = 0;
+		ret = true;
 	}
 
 	return ret;
-- 
2.27.0

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mm: change to return bool for folio_isolate_lru()

[SeongJae Park]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:29 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> Now the folio_isolate_lru() did not return a boolean value to indicate
> isolation success or not, however below code checking the return value
> can make people think that it was a boolean success/failure thing, which
> makes people easy to make mistakes (see the fix patch[1]).
> 
> if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
> 	continue;
> 
> Thus it's better to check the negative error value expilictly returned by
> folio_isolate_lru(), which makes code more clear per Linus's suggestion[2].
> Moreover Matthew suggested we can convert the isolation functions to return
> a boolean[3], since most users did not care about the negative error value,
> and can also remove the confusing of checking return value.
> 
> So this patch converts the folio_isolate_lru() to return a boolean value,
> which means return 'true' to indicate the folio isolation is successful, and
> 'false' means a failure to isolation. Meanwhile changing all users' logic of
> checking the isolation state.
> 
> No functional changes intended.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230131063206.28820-1-Kuan-Ying.Lee@mediatek.com/T/#u
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiBrY+O-4=2mrbVyxR+hOqfdJ=Do6xoucfJ9_5az01L4Q@mail.gmail.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+sTFqwMNAjDvxw3@casper.infradead.org/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  mm/damon/paddr.c  |  2 +-
>  mm/folio-compat.c |  8 +++++++-
>  mm/gup.c          |  2 +-
>  mm/internal.h     |  2 +-
>  mm/khugepaged.c   |  2 +-
>  mm/madvise.c      |  4 ++--
>  mm/mempolicy.c    |  2 +-
>  mm/vmscan.c       | 10 +++++-----
>  8 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/damon/paddr.c b/mm/damon/paddr.c
> index b4df9b9bcc0a..607bb69e526c 100644
> --- a/mm/damon/paddr.c
> +++ b/mm/damon/paddr.c
> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static unsigned long damon_pa_pageout(struct damon_region *r, struct damos *s)
>  
>  		folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>  		folio_test_clear_young(folio);
> -		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
> +		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
>  			folio_put(folio);
>  			continue;
>  		}
> diff --git a/mm/folio-compat.c b/mm/folio-compat.c
> index 18c48b557926..540373cf904e 100644
> --- a/mm/folio-compat.c
> +++ b/mm/folio-compat.c
> @@ -115,9 +115,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(grab_cache_page_write_begin);
>  
>  int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
>  {
> +	bool ret;
> +
>  	if (WARN_RATELIMIT(PageTail(page), "trying to isolate tail page"))
>  		return -EBUSY;
> -	return folio_isolate_lru((struct folio *)page);
> +	ret = folio_isolate_lru((struct folio *)page);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return -EBUSY;
>  }
>  
>  void putback_lru_page(struct page *page)
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index b0885f70579c..eab18ba045db 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -1939,7 +1939,7 @@ static unsigned long collect_longterm_unpinnable_pages(
>  			drain_allow = false;
>  		}
>  
> -		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
> +		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio))
>  			continue;
>  
>  		list_add_tail(&folio->lru, movable_page_list);
> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> index dfb37e94e140..8645e8496537 100644
> --- a/mm/internal.h
> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ pgprot_t __init early_memremap_pgprot_adjust(resource_size_t phys_addr,
>   * in mm/vmscan.c:
>   */
>  int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page);
> -int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio);
> +bool folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio);
>  void putback_lru_page(struct page *page);
>  void folio_putback_lru(struct folio *folio);
>  extern void reclaim_throttle(pg_data_t *pgdat, enum vmscan_throttle_state reason);
> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
> index a5d32231bfad..cee659cfa3c1 100644
> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
> @@ -2047,7 +2047,7 @@ static int collapse_file(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>  			goto out_unlock;
>  		}
>  
> -		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
> +		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
>  			result = SCAN_DEL_PAGE_LRU;
>  			goto out_unlock;
>  		}
> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> index 5a5a687d03c2..c2202f51e9dd 100644
> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>  		folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>  		folio_test_clear_young(folio);
>  		if (pageout) {
> -			if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
> +			if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
>  				if (folio_test_unevictable(folio))
>  					folio_putback_lru(folio);
>  				else
> @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>  		folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>  		folio_test_clear_young(folio);
>  		if (pageout) {
> -			if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
> +			if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
>  				if (folio_test_unevictable(folio))
>  					folio_putback_lru(folio);
>  				else
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 0919c7a719d4..2751bc3310fd 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -1033,7 +1033,7 @@ static int migrate_folio_add(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *foliolist,
>  	 * expensive, so check the estimated mapcount of the folio instead.
>  	 */
>  	if ((flags & MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL) || folio_estimated_sharers(folio) == 1) {
> -		if (!folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
> +		if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) {
>  			list_add_tail(&folio->lru, foliolist);
>  			node_stat_mod_folio(folio,
>  				NR_ISOLATED_ANON + folio_is_file_lru(folio),
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 34535bbd4fe9..7658b40df947 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2337,12 +2337,12 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>   * (2) The lru_lock must not be held.
>   * (3) Interrupts must be enabled.
>   *
> - * Return: 0 if the folio was removed from an LRU list.
> - * -EBUSY if the folio was not on an LRU list.
> + * Return: true if the folio was removed from an LRU list.
> + * false if the folio was not on an LRU list.
>   */
> -int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio)
> +bool folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio)
>  {
> -	int ret = -EBUSY;
> +	bool ret = false;
>  
>  	VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_ref_count(folio), folio);
>  
> @@ -2353,7 +2353,7 @@ int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio)
>  		lruvec = folio_lruvec_lock_irq(folio);
>  		lruvec_del_folio(lruvec, folio);
>  		unlock_page_lruvec_irq(lruvec);
> -		ret = 0;
> +		ret = true;
>  	}
>  
>  	return ret;
> -- 
> 2.27.0

Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>


Thanks,
SJ

[PATCH v2 2/4] mm: change to return bool for isolate_lru_page()

[Baolin Wang]

The isolate_lru_page() can only return 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did
not care about the negative error of isolate_lru_page(), except one user
in add_page_for_migration(). So we can convert the isolate_lru_page() to
return a boolean value, which can help to make the code more clear when
checking the return value of isolate_lru_page().

Also convert all users' logic of checking the isolation state.

No functional changes intended.

Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
---
 mm/folio-compat.c   | 12 +++---------
 mm/internal.h       |  2 +-
 mm/khugepaged.c     |  2 +-
 mm/memcontrol.c     |  4 ++--
 mm/memory-failure.c |  4 ++--
 mm/memory_hotplug.c |  2 +-
 mm/migrate.c        |  9 ++++++---
 mm/migrate_device.c |  2 +-
 8 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/folio-compat.c b/mm/folio-compat.c
index 540373cf904e..cabcd1de9ecb 100644
--- a/mm/folio-compat.c
+++ b/mm/folio-compat.c
@@ -113,17 +113,11 @@ struct page *grab_cache_page_write_begin(struct address_space *mapping,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(grab_cache_page_write_begin);
 
-int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
+bool isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
 {
-	bool ret;
-
 	if (WARN_RATELIMIT(PageTail(page), "trying to isolate tail page"))
-		return -EBUSY;
-	ret = folio_isolate_lru((struct folio *)page);
-	if (ret)
-		return 0;
-
-	return -EBUSY;
+		return false;
+	return folio_isolate_lru((struct folio *)page);
 }
 
 void putback_lru_page(struct page *page)
diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
index 8645e8496537..fc01fd092ea5 100644
--- a/mm/internal.h
+++ b/mm/internal.h
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ pgprot_t __init early_memremap_pgprot_adjust(resource_size_t phys_addr,
 /*
  * in mm/vmscan.c:
  */
-int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page);
+bool isolate_lru_page(struct page *page);
 bool folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio);
 void putback_lru_page(struct page *page);
 void folio_putback_lru(struct folio *folio);
diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index cee659cfa3c1..8dbc39896811 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ static int __collapse_huge_page_isolate(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		 * Isolate the page to avoid collapsing an hugepage
 		 * currently in use by the VM.
 		 */
-		if (isolate_lru_page(page)) {
+		if (!isolate_lru_page(page)) {
 			unlock_page(page);
 			result = SCAN_DEL_PAGE_LRU;
 			goto out;
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 17335459d8dc..e8fd42be5fab 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -6176,7 +6176,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
 		target_type = get_mctgt_type_thp(vma, addr, *pmd, &target);
 		if (target_type == MC_TARGET_PAGE) {
 			page = target.page;
-			if (!isolate_lru_page(page)) {
+			if (isolate_lru_page(page)) {
 				if (!mem_cgroup_move_account(page, true,
 							     mc.from, mc.to)) {
 					mc.precharge -= HPAGE_PMD_NR;
@@ -6226,7 +6226,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
 			 */
 			if (PageTransCompound(page))
 				goto put;
-			if (!device && isolate_lru_page(page))
+			if (!device && !isolate_lru_page(page))
 				goto put;
 			if (!mem_cgroup_move_account(page, false,
 						mc.from, mc.to)) {
diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
index db85c2d37f70..e504362fdb23 100644
--- a/mm/memory-failure.c
+++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
@@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ static const char * const action_page_types[] = {
  */
 static int delete_from_lru_cache(struct page *p)
 {
-	if (!isolate_lru_page(p)) {
+	if (isolate_lru_page(p)) {
 		/*
 		 * Clear sensible page flags, so that the buddy system won't
 		 * complain when the page is unpoison-and-freed.
@@ -2513,7 +2513,7 @@ static bool isolate_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *pagelist)
 		bool lru = !__PageMovable(page);
 
 		if (lru)
-			isolated = !isolate_lru_page(page);
+			isolated = isolate_lru_page(page);
 		else
 			isolated = !isolate_movable_page(page,
 							 ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
index a1e8c3e9ab08..17ed80707518 100644
--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
+++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -1668,7 +1668,7 @@ do_migrate_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
 		 * LRU and non-lru movable pages.
 		 */
 		if (PageLRU(page))
-			ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
+			ret = !isolate_lru_page(page);
 		else
 			ret = isolate_movable_page(page, ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
 		if (!ret) { /* Success */
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index ef68a1aff35c..53010a142e7f 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c
@@ -2132,11 +2132,14 @@ static int add_page_for_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
 		}
 	} else {
 		struct page *head;
+		bool isolated;
 
 		head = compound_head(page);
-		err = isolate_lru_page(head);
-		if (err)
+		isolated = isolate_lru_page(head);
+		if (!isolated) {
+			err = -EBUSY;
 			goto out_putpage;
+		}
 
 		err = 1;
 		list_add_tail(&head->lru, pagelist);
@@ -2541,7 +2544,7 @@ static int numamigrate_isolate_page(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct page *page)
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	if (isolate_lru_page(page))
+	if (!isolate_lru_page(page))
 		return 0;
 
 	mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(page), NR_ISOLATED_ANON + page_is_file_lru(page),
diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
index 6c3740318a98..d30c9de60b0d 100644
--- a/mm/migrate_device.c
+++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static unsigned long migrate_device_unmap(unsigned long *src_pfns,
 				allow_drain = false;
 			}
 
-			if (isolate_lru_page(page)) {
+			if (!isolate_lru_page(page)) {
 				src_pfns[i] &= ~MIGRATE_PFN_MIGRATE;
 				restore++;
 				continue;
-- 
2.27.0

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: change to return bool for isolate_lru_page()

[SeongJae Park]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:30 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> The isolate_lru_page() can only return 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did
> not care about the negative error of isolate_lru_page(), except one user
> in add_page_for_migration(). So we can convert the isolate_lru_page() to
> return a boolean value, which can help to make the code more clear when
> checking the return value of isolate_lru_page().
> 
> Also convert all users' logic of checking the isolation state.
> 
> No functional changes intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  mm/folio-compat.c   | 12 +++---------
>  mm/internal.h       |  2 +-
>  mm/khugepaged.c     |  2 +-
>  mm/memcontrol.c     |  4 ++--
>  mm/memory-failure.c |  4 ++--
>  mm/memory_hotplug.c |  2 +-
>  mm/migrate.c        |  9 ++++++---
>  mm/migrate_device.c |  2 +-
>  8 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> index a1e8c3e9ab08..17ed80707518 100644
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -1668,7 +1668,7 @@ do_migrate_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>  		 * LRU and non-lru movable pages.
>  		 */
>  		if (PageLRU(page))
> -			ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
> +			ret = !isolate_lru_page(page);

This may change return value of this function.  That is, this function will
return 1 instead of -EBUSY after this change.  It's not a real issue as no
caller of this function takes care of the return value, though.


Thanks,
SJ

>  		else
>  			ret = isolate_movable_page(page, ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
>  		if (!ret) { /* Success */
[...]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: change to return bool for isolate_lru_page()

[Baolin Wang]

On 2/15/2023 3:32 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:30 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
>> The isolate_lru_page() can only return 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did
>> not care about the negative error of isolate_lru_page(), except one user
>> in add_page_for_migration(). So we can convert the isolate_lru_page() to
>> return a boolean value, which can help to make the code more clear when
>> checking the return value of isolate_lru_page().
>>
>> Also convert all users' logic of checking the isolation state.
>>
>> No functional changes intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/folio-compat.c   | 12 +++---------
>>   mm/internal.h       |  2 +-
>>   mm/khugepaged.c     |  2 +-
>>   mm/memcontrol.c     |  4 ++--
>>   mm/memory-failure.c |  4 ++--
>>   mm/memory_hotplug.c |  2 +-
>>   mm/migrate.c        |  9 ++++++---
>>   mm/migrate_device.c |  2 +-
>>   8 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
> [...]
>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> index a1e8c3e9ab08..17ed80707518 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> @@ -1668,7 +1668,7 @@ do_migrate_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>>   		 * LRU and non-lru movable pages.
>>   		 */
>>   		if (PageLRU(page))
>> -			ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
>> +			ret = !isolate_lru_page(page);
> 
> This may change return value of this function.  That is, this function will
> return 1 instead of -EBUSY after this change.  It's not a real issue as no
> caller of this function takes care of the return value, though.

Yes, I've also thought about this. OK, I can keep the original logic 
here by adding a new variable. Thanks.

isolated = isolate_lru_page(page);
ret = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;

[PATCH v2 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate_hugetlb()

[Baolin Wang]

Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not
care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb()
to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the
hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider
the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb().

No functional changes intended.

Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
---
 include/linux/hugetlb.h |  6 +++---
 mm/hugetlb.c            | 12 ++++++++----
 mm/memory-failure.c     |  2 +-
 mm/mempolicy.c          |  2 +-
 mm/migrate.c            |  2 +-
 5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
index df6dd624ccfe..5f5e4177b2e0 100644
--- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
+++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ bool hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long from, long to,
 						vm_flags_t vm_flags);
 long hugetlb_unreserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long start, long end,
 						long freed);
-int isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list);
+bool isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list);
 int get_hwpoison_hugetlb_folio(struct folio *folio, bool *hugetlb, bool unpoison);
 int get_huge_page_for_hwpoison(unsigned long pfn, int flags,
 				bool *migratable_cleared);
@@ -413,9 +413,9 @@ static inline pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
 	return NULL;
 }
 
-static inline int isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
+static inline bool isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
 {
-	return -EBUSY;
+	return false;
 }
 
 static inline int get_hwpoison_hugetlb_folio(struct folio *folio, bool *hugetlb, bool unpoison)
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 3a01a9dbf445..75097e3abc18 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2932,6 +2932,10 @@ static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
 		spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
 		ret = isolate_hugetlb(old_folio, list);
 		spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
+		if (!ret)
+			ret = -EBUSY;
+		else
+			ret = 0;
 		goto free_new;
 	} else if (!folio_test_hugetlb_freed(old_folio)) {
 		/*
@@ -3005,7 +3009,7 @@ int isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
 	if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	if (folio_ref_count(folio) && !isolate_hugetlb(folio, list))
+	if (folio_ref_count(folio) && isolate_hugetlb(folio, list))
 		ret = 0;
 	else if (!folio_ref_count(folio))
 		ret = alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, list);
@@ -7251,15 +7255,15 @@ __weak unsigned long hugetlb_mask_last_page(struct hstate *h)
  * These functions are overwritable if your architecture needs its own
  * behavior.
  */
-int isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
+bool isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
 {
-	int ret = 0;
+	bool ret = true;
 
 	spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
 	if (!folio_test_hugetlb(folio) ||
 	    !folio_test_hugetlb_migratable(folio) ||
 	    !folio_try_get(folio)) {
-		ret = -EBUSY;
+		ret = false;
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 	folio_clear_hugetlb_migratable(folio);
diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
index e504362fdb23..8604753bc644 100644
--- a/mm/memory-failure.c
+++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
@@ -2508,7 +2508,7 @@ static bool isolate_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *pagelist)
 	bool isolated = false;
 
 	if (PageHuge(page)) {
-		isolated = !isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
+		isolated = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
 	} else {
 		bool lru = !__PageMovable(page);
 
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 2751bc3310fd..a256a241fd1d 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static int queue_folios_hugetlb(pte_t *pte, unsigned long hmask,
 	if (flags & (MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL) ||
 	    (flags & MPOL_MF_MOVE && folio_estimated_sharers(folio) == 1 &&
 	     !hugetlb_pmd_shared(pte))) {
-		if (isolate_hugetlb(folio, qp->pagelist) &&
+		if (!isolate_hugetlb(folio, qp->pagelist) &&
 			(flags & MPOL_MF_STRICT))
 			/*
 			 * Failed to isolate folio but allow migrating pages
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index 53010a142e7f..c5136fa48638 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c
@@ -2128,7 +2128,7 @@ static int add_page_for_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
 		if (PageHead(page)) {
 			err = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
 			if (!err)
-				err = 1;
+				err = -EBUSY;
 		}
 	} else {
 		struct page *head;
-- 
2.27.0

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate_hugetlb()

[SeongJae Park]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:31 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not
> care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb()
> to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the
> hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider
> the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb().
> 
> No functional changes intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/hugetlb.h |  6 +++---
>  mm/hugetlb.c            | 12 ++++++++----
>  mm/memory-failure.c     |  2 +-
>  mm/mempolicy.c          |  2 +-
>  mm/migrate.c            |  2 +-
>  5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> index df6dd624ccfe..5f5e4177b2e0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ bool hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long from, long to,
>  						vm_flags_t vm_flags);
>  long hugetlb_unreserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long start, long end,
>  						long freed);
> -int isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list);
> +bool isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list);
>  int get_hwpoison_hugetlb_folio(struct folio *folio, bool *hugetlb, bool unpoison);
>  int get_huge_page_for_hwpoison(unsigned long pfn, int flags,
>  				bool *migratable_cleared);
> @@ -413,9 +413,9 @@ static inline pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>  	return NULL;
>  }
>  
> -static inline int isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
> +static inline bool isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
>  {
> -	return -EBUSY;
> +	return false;
>  }
>  
>  static inline int get_hwpoison_hugetlb_folio(struct folio *folio, bool *hugetlb, bool unpoison)
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 3a01a9dbf445..75097e3abc18 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -2932,6 +2932,10 @@ static int alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>  		spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>  		ret = isolate_hugetlb(old_folio, list);
>  		spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			ret = -EBUSY;
> +		else
> +			ret = 0;

This would work, but 'ret' is not 'bool' but 'int'.  How about below?

  		ret = isolate_hugetlb(old_folio, list) ? 0 : -EBUSY;

>  		goto free_new;
>  	} else if (!folio_test_hugetlb_freed(old_folio)) {
>  		/*
> @@ -3005,7 +3009,7 @@ int isolate_or_dissolve_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>  	if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	if (folio_ref_count(folio) && !isolate_hugetlb(folio, list))
> +	if (folio_ref_count(folio) && isolate_hugetlb(folio, list))
>  		ret = 0;
>  	else if (!folio_ref_count(folio))
>  		ret = alloc_and_dissolve_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, list);
> @@ -7251,15 +7255,15 @@ __weak unsigned long hugetlb_mask_last_page(struct hstate *h)
>   * These functions are overwritable if your architecture needs its own
>   * behavior.
>   */
> -int isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
> +bool isolate_hugetlb(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list)
>  {
> -	int ret = 0;
> +	bool ret = true;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>  	if (!folio_test_hugetlb(folio) ||
>  	    !folio_test_hugetlb_migratable(folio) ||
>  	    !folio_try_get(folio)) {
> -		ret = -EBUSY;
> +		ret = false;
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
>  	folio_clear_hugetlb_migratable(folio);
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index e504362fdb23..8604753bc644 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -2508,7 +2508,7 @@ static bool isolate_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *pagelist)
>  	bool isolated = false;
>  
>  	if (PageHuge(page)) {
> -		isolated = !isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
> +		isolated = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
>  	} else {
>  		bool lru = !__PageMovable(page);
>  
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index 2751bc3310fd..a256a241fd1d 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static int queue_folios_hugetlb(pte_t *pte, unsigned long hmask,
>  	if (flags & (MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL) ||
>  	    (flags & MPOL_MF_MOVE && folio_estimated_sharers(folio) == 1 &&
>  	     !hugetlb_pmd_shared(pte))) {
> -		if (isolate_hugetlb(folio, qp->pagelist) &&
> +		if (!isolate_hugetlb(folio, qp->pagelist) &&
>  			(flags & MPOL_MF_STRICT))
>  			/*
>  			 * Failed to isolate folio but allow migrating pages
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index 53010a142e7f..c5136fa48638 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -2128,7 +2128,7 @@ static int add_page_for_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>  		if (PageHead(page)) {
>  			err = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
>  			if (!err)
> -				err = 1;
> +				err = -EBUSY;

Again, I think this is confusing.  'err' is 'bool', not 'int'.


Thanks,
SJ

>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		struct page *head;
> -- 
> 2.27.0
> 

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate_hugetlb()

[SeongJae Park]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:03:24 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:31 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
> > Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not
> > care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb()
> > to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the
> > hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider
> > the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb().
> > 
> > No functional changes intended.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/hugetlb.h |  6 +++---
> >  mm/hugetlb.c            | 12 ++++++++----
> >  mm/memory-failure.c     |  2 +-
> >  mm/mempolicy.c          |  2 +-
> >  mm/migrate.c            |  2 +-
> >  5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > index df6dd624ccfe..5f5e4177b2e0 100644
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > index 53010a142e7f..c5136fa48638 100644
> > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > @@ -2128,7 +2128,7 @@ static int add_page_for_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> >  		if (PageHead(page)) {
> >  			err = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
> >  			if (!err)
> > -				err = 1;
> > +				err = -EBUSY;
> 
> Again, I think this is confusing.  'err' is 'bool', not 'int'.

I mean, 'err' is not 'bool' but 'int', sorry.  See? This confuses me ;)


Thanks,
SJ

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> SJ
> 
> >  		}
> >  	} else {
> >  		struct page *head;
> > -- 
> > 2.27.0
> > 

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate_hugetlb()

[Mike Kravetz]

On 02/14/23 18:07, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:03:24 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:31 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not
> > > care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb()
> > > to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the
> > > hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider
> > > the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb().
> > > 
> > > No functional changes intended.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/hugetlb.h |  6 +++---
> > >  mm/hugetlb.c            | 12 ++++++++----
> > >  mm/memory-failure.c     |  2 +-
> > >  mm/mempolicy.c          |  2 +-
> > >  mm/migrate.c            |  2 +-
> > >  5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > index df6dd624ccfe..5f5e4177b2e0 100644
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > > index 53010a142e7f..c5136fa48638 100644
> > > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > > @@ -2128,7 +2128,7 @@ static int add_page_for_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> > >  		if (PageHead(page)) {
> > >  			err = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
> > >  			if (!err)
> > > -				err = 1;
> > > +				err = -EBUSY;
> > 
> > Again, I think this is confusing.  'err' is 'bool', not 'int'.
> 
> I mean, 'err' is not 'bool' but 'int', sorry.  See? This confuses me ;)
> 

Yes,
in the case here (and elsewhere) I like David's suggestion of using a separate
bool such as 'isolated' to capture the return value of the isolate function.
Then, the statement:

	err = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;

would be pretty clear.
-- 
Mike Kravetz

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate_hugetlb()

[Baolin Wang]

On 2/15/2023 2:21 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 02/14/23 18:07, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:03:24 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:31 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not
>>>> care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb()
>>>> to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the
>>>> hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider
>>>> the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb().
>>>>
>>>> No functional changes intended.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   include/linux/hugetlb.h |  6 +++---
>>>>   mm/hugetlb.c            | 12 ++++++++----
>>>>   mm/memory-failure.c     |  2 +-
>>>>   mm/mempolicy.c          |  2 +-
>>>>   mm/migrate.c            |  2 +-
>>>>   5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>>> index df6dd624ccfe..5f5e4177b2e0 100644
>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> index 53010a142e7f..c5136fa48638 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> @@ -2128,7 +2128,7 @@ static int add_page_for_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>>>   		if (PageHead(page)) {
>>>>   			err = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
>>>>   			if (!err)
>>>> -				err = 1;
>>>> +				err = -EBUSY;
>>>
>>> Again, I think this is confusing.  'err' is 'bool', not 'int'.
>>
>> I mean, 'err' is not 'bool' but 'int', sorry.  See? This confuses me ;)
>>
> 
> Yes,
> in the case here (and elsewhere) I like David's suggestion of using a separate
> bool such as 'isolated' to capture the return value of the isolate function.
> Then, the statement:
> 
> 	err = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;
> 
> would be pretty clear.

Yes, much better, will do. Thanks.

[PATCH v2 4/4] mm: change to return bool for isolate_movable_page()

[Baolin Wang]

Now the isolate_movable_page() can only return 0 or -EBUSY, and no users
will care about the negative return value, thus we can convert the
isolate_movable_page() to return a boolean value to make the code more
clear when checking the movable page isolation state.

No functional changes intended.

Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
---
 include/linux/migrate.h | 6 +++---
 mm/compaction.c         | 2 +-
 mm/memory-failure.c     | 4 ++--
 mm/memory_hotplug.c     | 4 ++--
 mm/migrate.c            | 6 +++---
 5 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/migrate.h b/include/linux/migrate.h
index c88b96b48be7..6b252f519c86 100644
--- a/include/linux/migrate.h
+++ b/include/linux/migrate.h
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ extern int migrate_pages(struct list_head *l, new_page_t new, free_page_t free,
 		unsigned long private, enum migrate_mode mode, int reason,
 		unsigned int *ret_succeeded);
 extern struct page *alloc_migration_target(struct page *page, unsigned long private);
-extern int isolate_movable_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode);
+extern bool isolate_movable_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode);
 
 int migrate_huge_page_move_mapping(struct address_space *mapping,
 		struct folio *dst, struct folio *src);
@@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ static inline int migrate_pages(struct list_head *l, new_page_t new,
 static inline struct page *alloc_migration_target(struct page *page,
 		unsigned long private)
 	{ return NULL; }
-static inline int isolate_movable_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
-	{ return -EBUSY; }
+static inline bool isolate_movable_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
+	{ return false; }
 
 static inline int migrate_huge_page_move_mapping(struct address_space *mapping,
 				  struct folio *dst, struct folio *src)
diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
index d73578af44cc..ad7409f70519 100644
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -976,7 +976,7 @@ isolate_migratepages_block(struct compact_control *cc, unsigned long low_pfn,
 					locked = NULL;
 				}
 
-				if (!isolate_movable_page(page, mode))
+				if (isolate_movable_page(page, mode))
 					goto isolate_success;
 			}
 
diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
index 8604753bc644..a1ede7bdce95 100644
--- a/mm/memory-failure.c
+++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
@@ -2515,8 +2515,8 @@ static bool isolate_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *pagelist)
 		if (lru)
 			isolated = isolate_lru_page(page);
 		else
-			isolated = !isolate_movable_page(page,
-							 ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
+			isolated = isolate_movable_page(page,
+							ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
 
 		if (isolated) {
 			list_add(&page->lru, pagelist);
diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
index 17ed80707518..e54c4aa69636 100644
--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
+++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
@@ -1668,10 +1668,10 @@ do_migrate_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
 		 * LRU and non-lru movable pages.
 		 */
 		if (PageLRU(page))
-			ret = !isolate_lru_page(page);
+			ret = isolate_lru_page(page);
 		else
 			ret = isolate_movable_page(page, ISOLATE_UNEVICTABLE);
-		if (!ret) { /* Success */
+		if (ret) { /* Success */
 			list_add_tail(&page->lru, &source);
 			if (!__PageMovable(page))
 				inc_node_page_state(page, NR_ISOLATED_ANON +
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index c5136fa48638..b7982aa745b0 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
 
 #include "internal.h"
 
-int isolate_movable_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
+bool isolate_movable_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
 {
 	struct folio *folio = folio_get_nontail_page(page);
 	const struct movable_operations *mops;
@@ -119,14 +119,14 @@ int isolate_movable_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode)
 	folio_set_isolated(folio);
 	folio_unlock(folio);
 
-	return 0;
+	return true;
 
 out_no_isolated:
 	folio_unlock(folio);
 out_putfolio:
 	folio_put(folio);
 out:
-	return -EBUSY;
+	return false;
 }
 
 static void putback_movable_folio(struct folio *folio)
-- 
2.27.0

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation functions

[David Hildenbrand]

On 14.02.23 14:59, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Now the page isolation functions did not return a boolean to indicate
> success or not, instead it will return a negative error when failed
> to isolate a page. So below code used in most places seem a boolean
> success/failure thing, which can confuse people whether the isolation
> is successful.
> 
> if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
>          continue;
> 
> Moreover the page isolation functions only return 0 or -EBUSY, and
> most users did not care about the negative error except for few users,
> thus we can convert all page isolation functions to return a boolean
> value, which can remove the confusion to make code more clear.
> 
> No functional changes intended in this patch series.
> 
> Changes from v1:
>   - Convert all isolation functions to return bool.

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Although it's controversial if

if (!ret)
	ret = -EBUSY;
else
	ret = 0;

is really appealing to the readers eye :)

ret = ret ? 0 : -EBUSY;

It's still confusing.

would be better as

ret = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;

IOW, not reusing the "int ret" variable.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Change the return value for page isolation functions

[Baolin Wang]

On 2/15/2023 1:52 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 14.02.23 14:59, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> Now the page isolation functions did not return a boolean to indicate
>> success or not, instead it will return a negative error when failed
>> to isolate a page. So below code used in most places seem a boolean
>> success/failure thing, which can confuse people whether the isolation
>> is successful.
>>
>> if (folio_isolate_lru(folio))
>>          continue;
>>
>> Moreover the page isolation functions only return 0 or -EBUSY, and
>> most users did not care about the negative error except for few users,
>> thus we can convert all page isolation functions to return a boolean
>> value, which can remove the confusion to make code more clear.
>>
>> No functional changes intended in this patch series.
>>
>> Changes from v1:
>>   - Convert all isolation functions to return bool.
> 
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Thanks.

> 
> Although it's controversial if
> 
> if (!ret)
>      ret = -EBUSY;
> else
>      ret = 0;
> 
> is really appealing to the readers eye :)
> 
> ret = ret ? 0 : -EBUSY;
> 
> It's still confusing.
> 
> would be better as
> 
> ret = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;
> 
> IOW, not reusing the "int ret" variable.

Yes, pretty clear. Will do in next version.