Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] mm: use put_page to free page instead of putback_lru_page

[Minchan Kim]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:53:59PM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30/03/16 18:12, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Procedure of page migration is as follows:
> >
> > First of all, it should isolate a page from LRU and try to
> > migrate the page. If it is successful, it releases the page
> > for freeing. Otherwise, it should put the page back to LRU
> > list.
> >
> > For LRU pages, we have used putback_lru_page for both freeing
> > and putback to LRU list. It's okay because put_page is aware of
> > LRU list so if it releases last refcount of the page, it removes
> > the page from LRU list. However, It makes unnecessary operations
> > (e.g., lru_cache_add, pagevec and flags operations. It would be
> > not significant but no worth to do) and harder to support new
> > non-lru page migration because put_page isn't aware of non-lru
> > page's data structure.
> >
> > To solve the problem, we can add new hook in put_page with
> > PageMovable flags check but it can increase overhead in
> > hot path and needs new locking scheme to stabilize the flag check
> > with put_page.
> >
> > So, this patch cleans it up to divide two semantic(ie, put and putback).
> > If migration is successful, use put_page instead of putback_lru_page and
> > use putback_lru_page only on failure. That makes code more readable
> > and doesn't add overhead in put_page.
> So effectively when we return from unmap_and_move() the page is either
> put_page or putback_lru_page() and the page is gone from under us.

I didn't get your point.
Could you elaborate it more what you want to say about this patch?