On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:34:01 +0100 (IST)
Mel Gorman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_ISOLATION
> > + /*
> > + * For pages which are not used but not free.
> > + * See include/linux/page_isolation.h
> > + */
> > + spinlock_t isolation_lock;
> > + struct list_head isolation_list;
> > +#endif
>
> Using MIGRATE_ISOLATING instead of this approach does mean that there will
> be MAX_ORDER additional struct free_area added to the zone. That is more
> lists than this approach.
>
Thank you!, its an interesting idea. I think it will make our code much
simpler. I'll look into.
> I am somewhat suprised that CONFIG_PAGE_ISOLATION exists as a separate
> option. If it was a compile-time option at all, I would expect it to
> depend on memory hot-remove being selected.
>
I myself think CONFIG_PAGE_ISOLATION can be used by some code which need to
isolate some amount of contiguous pages. So config is divided for now.
Now, CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE selects this.
CONFIG_PAGE_ISOLATION and CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE will be merged later
if there are no one who use this except for hot-removal.
> > /*
> > * zone_start_pfn, spanned_pages and present_pages are all
> > * protected by span_seqlock. It is a seqlock because it has
> > Index: current_test/mm/page_alloc.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- current_test.orig/mm/page_alloc.c 2007-05-08 15:07:20.000000000 +0900
> > +++ current_test/mm/page_alloc.c 2007-05-08 15:08:34.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
> > #include <linux/pfn.h>
> > #include <linux/backing-dev.h>
> > #include <linux/fault-inject.h>
> > +#include <linux/page_isolation.h>
> >
> > #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> > #include <asm/div64.h>
> > @@ -448,6 +449,9 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struc
> > if (unlikely(PageCompound(page)))
> > destroy_compound_page(page, order);
> >
> > + if (page_under_isolation(zone, page, order))
> > + return;
> > +
>
> Using MIGRATE_ISOLATING would avoid a potential list search here.
>
yes. thank you.
> > page_idx = page_to_pfn(page) & ((1 << MAX_ORDER) - 1);
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON(page_idx & (order_size - 1));
> > @@ -3259,6 +3263,10 @@ static void __meminit free_area_init_cor
> > zone->nr_scan_inactive = 0;
> > zap_zone_vm_stats(zone);
> > atomic_set(&zone->reclaim_in_progress, 0);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_ISOLATION
> > + spin_lock_init(&zone->isolation_lock);
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&zone->isolation_list);
> i> +#endif
> > if (!size)
> > continue;
> >
> > @@ -4214,3 +4222,182 @@ void set_pageblock_flags_group(struct pa
> > else
> > __clear_bit(bitidx + start_bitidx, bitmap);
> > }
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_ISOLATION
> > +/*
> > + * Page Isolation.
> > + *
> > + * If a page is removed from usual free_list and will never be used,
> > + * It is linked to "struct isolation_info" and set Reserved, Private
> > + * bit. page->mapping points to isolation_info in it.
> > + * and page_count(page) is 0.
> > + *
> > + * This can be used for creating a chunk of contiguous *unused* memory.
> > + *
> > + * current user is Memory-Hot-Remove.
> > + * maybe move to some other file is better.
>
> page_isolation.c to match the header filename seems reasonable.
> page_alloc.c has a lot of multi-function stuff like memory initialisation
> in it.
Hmm.
>
> > + */
> > +static void
> > +isolate_page_nolock(struct isolation_info *info, struct page *page, int order)
> > +{
> > + int pagenum;
> > + pagenum = 1 << order;
> > + while (pagenum > 0) {
> > + SetPageReserved(page);
> > + SetPagePrivate(page);
> > + page->private = (unsigned long)info;
> > + list_add(&page->lru, &info->pages);
> > + page++;
> > + pagenum--;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> It's worth commenting somewhere that pages on the list in isolation_info
> are always order-0.
>
okay.
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This function is called from page_under_isolation()
> > + */
> > +
> > +int __page_under_isolation(struct zone *zone, struct page *page, int order)
> > +{
> > + struct isolation_info *info;
> > + unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int found = 0;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->isolation_lock,flags);
>
> An unwritten convention seems to be that __ versions of same-named
> functions are the nolock version. i.e. I would expect
> page_under_isolation() to acquire and release the spinlock and
> __page_under_isolation() to do no additional locking.
>
> Locking outside of here might make the flow a little clearer as well if
> you had two returns and avoided the use of "found".
>
Maybe MOVABLE_ISOLATING will simplify these code.
> > + list_for_each_entry(info, &zone->isolation_list, list) {
> > + if (info->start_pfn <= pfn && pfn < info->end_pfn) {
> > + found = 1;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + if (found) {
> > + isolate_page_nolock(info, page, order);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->isolation_lock, flags);
> > + return found;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * start and end must be in the same zone.
> > + *
> > + */
> > +struct isolation_info *
> > +register_isolation(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> > +{
> > + struct zone *zone;
> > + struct isolation_info *info = NULL, *tmp;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned long last_pfn = end - 1;
> > +
> > + if (!pfn_valid(start) || !pfn_valid(last_pfn) || (start >= end))
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > + /* check start and end is in the same zone */
> > + zone = page_zone(pfn_to_page(start));
> > +
> > + if (zone != page_zone(pfn_to_page(last_pfn)))
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > + /* target range has to match MAX_ORDER alignmet */
> > + if ((start & (MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES - 1)) ||
> > + (end & (MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES - 1)))
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> Why does the range have to be MAX_ORDER alighned?
>
> > + info = kmalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!info)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->isolation_lock, flags);
> > + /* we don't allow overlap among isolation areas */
> > + if (!list_empty(&zone->isolation_list)) {
> > + list_for_each_entry(tmp, &zone->isolation_list, list) {
> > + if (start < tmp->end_pfn && end > tmp->start_pfn) {
> > + goto out_free;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Why not merge requests for overlapping isolations?
This is related to memory-unplug interface. It doesn't allow overlaping.
So this is not expected to happen. just sanity check.
but this code will be removed by MIGRATE_ISOLATING.
Thank you for your good idea.
-Kame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
