Re: [PATCH RFC v6 3/5] mm/migrate: add copy offload registration infrastructure

[Garg, Shivank]

On 7/20/2026 8:14 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2026, at 7:19, Huang, Ying wrote:
> 
>> Shivank Garg <shivankg@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>>> index 41b732e78a67..4fed3110ca0a 100644
>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>>> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
>>>  #include <linux/sched/sysctl.h>
>>>  #include <linux/memory-tiers.h>
>>>  #include <linux/pagewalk.h>
>>> +#include <linux/migrate_copy_offload.h>
>>>
>>>  #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>>>
>>> @@ -51,12 +52,6 @@
>>>  #include "internal.h"
>>>  #include "swap.h"
>>>
>>> -/* For now, never offload. Wired up in later patch. */
>>> -static bool migrate_should_offload(int reason)
>>> -{
>>> -	return false;
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>  static const struct movable_operations *offline_movable_ops;
>>>  static const struct movable_operations *zsmalloc_movable_ops;
>>>
>>> @@ -2050,7 +2045,7 @@ static int migrate_pages_batch(struct list_head *from,
>>>
>>>  	/* Batch-copy eligible folios before the move phase */
>>>  	if (!list_empty(&unmap_batch))
>>> -		migrate_folios_mc_copy(&dst_batch, &unmap_batch, nr_batch);
>>> +		migrate_offload_batch_copy(&dst_batch, &unmap_batch, nr_batch);
>>>
>>>  	retry = 1;
>>>  	for (pass = 0; pass < nr_pass && retry; pass++) {
>>
>> Found a difference between v5 and v6 here.  In v5, migrate_pages_batch()
>> checks the return value of migrate_offload_batch_copy() and acts
>> accordingly. While in v6, it does not.  Why was this changed?
>>
>> IIUC, FOLIO_CONTENT_COPIED is now used to indicate a copy failure.  Is
>> this necessary?  Is it possible that some (but not all) folios fail to
>> be copied?
> 
> Based on the discussion[1], FOLIO_CONTENT_COPIED is used to indicate both
> 1. folio is copied via offloading, and 2. MC copy failure. So the code
> no longer needs to store the return value of migrate_offload_batch_copy()
> and can just check dst->migrate_info & FOLIO_CONTENT_COPIED.
> 
> For 32bit, FOLIO_CONTENT_COPIED is always 0, so all folios are always
> copied in the serialized path. Hmm, that might be causing double copying,
> since migrate_folios_mc_copy() copies batched folios and later
> migrate_folios_move() copies them again since
> dst->migrate_info & FOLIO_CONTENT_COPIED is always false. Maybe we could
> make migrate_folios_mc_copy() return immediately in 32bit, otherwise,
> we will need to find somewhere else to store FOLIO_CONTENT_COPIED.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/c2bfdf39-8caa-43bd-b1ad-2285b4cc767a@xxxxxxx/
> 
>>
It is not cause double copying.
migrate_should_offload() /and migrate_offload_enabled
gate if folio can be added to unmap_batch/dst_batch.

migrate_offload_enabled branch is enabled from the offload driver like DCBM (which
again depends on 64_BIT) will call migrate_offload_register().

I think I can add a defensive 64_BIT check in migrate_should_offload() to prevent
any potential bugs.

Thanks,
Shivank










>> [snip]
>>
>> ---
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi