Re: question on NUMA page migration

[Rik van Riel]

On 10/19/2012 12:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 11:53 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > If we do need the extra refcount, why is normal
> > page migration safe? :)
>
> Its mostly a matter of how convoluted you make the code, regular page
> migration is about as bad as you can get
>
> Normal does:
>
>    follow_page(FOLL_GET) +1
>
>    isolate_lru_page() +1
>
>    put_page() -1
>
> ending up with a page with a single reference (for anon, or one extra
> each for the mapping and buffer).

Would it make sense to have the normal page migration code always
work with the extra refcount, so we do not have to introduce a new
MIGRATE_FAULT migration mode?

On the other hand, compaction does not take the extra reference...

Another alternative might be to do the put_page inside
do_prot_none_numa().  That would be analogous to do_wp_page
disposing of the old page for the caller.

I am not real happy about NUMA migration introducing its own
migration mode...

--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/