On 7/1/20 1:47 AM, Greg Thelen wrote:
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:It's not great. *But*, the alternative is to toss the page contents out
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@xxxxxxxxxx>Is there any concern that the src page is now held PG_locked over the
Defer allocating the page until we are actually ready to make use of
it, after locking the original page. This simplifies error handling,
but should not have any functional change in behavior. This is just
refactoring page migration so the main part can more easily be reused
by other code.
dst page allocation, which might wander into
reclaim/cond_resched/oom_kill? I don't have a deadlock in mind. I'm
just wondering about the additional latency imposed on unrelated threads
who want access src page.
and let users encounter a fault and an allocation. They would be
subject to all the latency associated with an allocation, just at a
slightly later time.
If it's a problem it seems like it would be pretty easy to fix, at least
for non-cgroup reclaim. We know which node we're reclaiming from and we
know if it has a demotion path, so we could proactively allocate a
single migration target page before doing the source lock_page(). That
creates some other problems, but I think it would be straightforward.
Yes, Keith is no longer at Intel, so that @intel.com mail would bounce.#Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>Is commented Signed-off-by intentional? Same applies to later patches.
I left the @intel.com SoB so it would be clear that the code originated
from Keith while at Intel, but commented it out to avoid it being picked
up by anyone's tooling.