Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: clarify folio_set_compound_order() zero support

[Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>]

On 12/7/22 6:27 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 12/7/22 17:42, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be better to instead just create a new function for that
>>> case, such as:
>>>
>>>      dissolve_large_folio()
>>>
>>
>> Prior to the folio conversion, the helper function 
>> __destroy_compound_gigantic_page() did:
>>
>>      set_compound_order(page, 0);
>> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>>      page[1].compound_nr = 0;
>> #endif
>>
>> as part of dissolving the page. My goal for this patch was to create a 
>> function that would encapsulate that segment of code with a single 
>> call of folio_set_compound_order(folio, 0). set_compound_order() does 
>> not set compound_nr to 0 when 0 is passed in to the order argument so 
>> explicitly setting it is required. I don't think a separate 
>> dissolve_large_folio() function for the hugetlb case is needed as 
>> __destroy_compound_gigantic_folio() is pretty concise as it is.
>>
> 
> Instead of "this is abusing function X()" comments, we should prefer
> well-named functions that do something understandable. And you can get
> that by noticing that folio_set_compound_order() collapses down to
> nearly nothing in the special "order 0" case. So just inline that code
> directly into __destroy_compound_gigantic_folio(), taking a moment to
> fill in and consolidate the CONFIG_64BIT missing parts in mm.h.
> 
> And now you can get rid of this cruft and "abuse" comment, and instead
> just end up with two simple lines of code that are crystal clear--as
> they should be, in a "__destroy" function. Like this:
> 
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 105878936485..cf227ed00945 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -1754,6 +1754,7 @@ static inline void set_page_links(struct page 
> *page, enum zone_type zone,
>   #endif
>   }
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>   /**
>    * folio_nr_pages - The number of pages in the folio.
>    * @folio: The folio.
> @@ -1764,13 +1765,32 @@ static inline long folio_nr_pages(struct folio 
> *folio)
>   {
>       if (!folio_test_large(folio))
>           return 1;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>       return folio->_folio_nr_pages;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void folio_set_nr_pages(struct folio *folio, long nr_pages)
> +{
> +    folio->_folio_nr_pages = nr_pages;
> +}
>   #else
> +/**
> + * folio_nr_pages - The number of pages in the folio.
> + * @folio: The folio.
> + *
> + * Return: A positive power of two.
> + */
> +static inline long folio_nr_pages(struct folio *folio)
> +{
> +    if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> +        return 1;
>       return 1L << folio->_folio_order;
> -#endif
>   }
> 
> +static inline void folio_set_nr_pages(struct folio *folio, long nr_pages)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif
> +
>   /**
>    * folio_next - Move to the next physical folio.
>    * @folio: The folio we're currently operating on.
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index e3500c087893..b507a98063e6 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1344,7 +1344,8 @@ static void 
> __destroy_compound_gigantic_folio(struct folio *folio,
>               set_page_refcounted(p);
>       }
> 
> -    folio_set_compound_order(folio, 0);
> +    folio->_folio_order = 0;
> +    folio_set_nr_pages(folio, 0);
>       __folio_clear_head(folio);
>   }
> 
> 
> Yes? 

This works for me, I will take this approach along with Muchun's 
feedback about a wrapper function so as not to touch _folio_order 
directly and send out a new version.

One question I have is if I should then get rid of 
folio_set_compound_order() as hugetlb is the only compound page user 
I've converted to folios so far and its use can be replaced by the 
suggested folio_set_nr_pages() and folio_set_order().

Hugetlb also has one has one call to folio_set_compound_order() with a 
non-zero order, should I replace this with a call to folio_set_order() 
and folio_set_nr_pages() as well, or keep folio_set_compound_order() and 
remove zero order support and the comment. Please let me know which 
approach you would prefer.

Thanks,
Sidhartha Kumar


> thanks,