On 17 Nov 2020, at 16:05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 05:38:01PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 08:08:58PM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> Matthew recently converted split_page_owner to take nr instead of order.[1]
>>> But I am not
>>> sure why, since it seems to me that two call sites (__split_huge_page in
>>> mm/huge_memory.c and split_page in mm/page_alloc.c) can pass the order
>>> information.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm not sure why too. Maybe Matthew has some input here?
>> You can also pass new_nr, but IMO orders look so much better here.
>
> If only I'd written that information in the changelog ... oh wait, I did!
>
>     mm/page_owner: change split_page_owner to take a count
>
>     The implementation of split_page_owner() prefers a count rather than the
>     old order of the page.  When we support a variable size THP, we won't
>     have the order at this point, but we will have the number of pages.
>     So change the interface to what the caller and callee would prefer.

There are two callers, split_page in mm/page_alloc.c and __split_huge_page in
mm/huge_memory.c. The former has the page order. The latter has the page order
information before __split_huge_page_tail is called, so we can do
old_order = thp_order(head) instead of nr = thp_nr_page(head) and use old_order.
What am I missing there?

Thanks.

—
Best Regards,
Yan Zi