Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
When THP migration, if THPs are split and all subpages are migrated successfully
, the migrate_pages() will still return the number of THP that were not migrated.
That will confuse the callers of migrate_pages(), for example, which will make
the longterm pinning failed though all pages are migrated successfully.
Thus we should return 0 to indicate all pages are migrated in this case.
Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes from v1:
- Fix the return value of migrate_pages() instead of fixing the
callers' validation.
---
mm/migrate.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index 8e5eb6e..1da0dbc 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c
@@ -1582,6 +1582,13 @@ int migrate_pages(struct list_head *from, new_page_t get_new_page,
*/
list_splice(&ret_pages, from);
+ /*
+ * Return 0 in case all subpages of fail-to-migrate THPs are
+ * migrated successfully.
+ */
+ if (nr_thp_split && list_empty(from))
+ rc = 0;
Why do you need to check nr_thp_split? Wouldn't list_empty(from) == True
imply success? And if it doesn't imply success wouldn't it be possible
to end up with nr_thp_split && list_empty(from) whilst still having
pages that failed to migrate?
The list management and return code logic from unmap_and_move() has
gotten pretty difficult to follow and could do with some rework IMHO.