Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] mm: page_owner: add support for splitting to any order in split page_owner.

[Zi Yan]

On 17 Nov 2020, at 16:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 04:12:03PM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Sure, we could also do that.  But what I wrote was true at the time I
> wrote it.

Got it. Thanks. Will change it to use old_order to make split_page_owner parameters
look more consistent.

—
Best Regards,
Yan Zi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature