From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC422C433DF for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF652086A for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:25:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org ACF652086A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id EC3C76B0002; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id E4C536B0003; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:25:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CECE96B0005; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:25:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0018.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.18]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41F56B0002 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489F682499A8 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:25:05 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77122331370.30.jam55_2305f2c26fbd Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2111E180B3AA7 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:25:05 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: jam55_2305f2c26fbd X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3054 Received: from out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.133]) by imf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:25:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R181e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01f04427;MF=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=19;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0U4zaDnJ_1596770697; Received: from IT-FVFX43SYHV2H.local(mailfrom:alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0U4zaDnJ_1596770697) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 11:24:58 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 14/21] mm/compaction: do page isolation first in compaction To: Alexander Duyck Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Hugh Dickins , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Daniel Jordan , Yang Shi , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , kbuild test robot , linux-mm , LKML , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt , Joonsoo Kim , Wei Yang , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Rong Chen References: <1595681998-19193-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <1595681998-19193-15-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <241ca157-104f-4f0d-7d5b-de394443788d@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:24:35 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2111E180B3AA7 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: =E5=9C=A8 2020/8/7 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=882:38, Alexander Duyck =E5=86=99=E9=81= =93: >> + >> isolate_abort: >> if (locked) >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pgdat->lru_lock, flags); >> + if (page) { >> + SetPageLRU(page); >> + put_page(page); >> + } >> >> /* >> * Updated the cached scanner pfn once the pageblock has been = scanned > We should probably be calling SetPageLRU before we release the lru > lock instead of before. It might make sense to just call it before we > get here, similar to how you did in the isolate_fail_put case a few > lines later. Otherwise this seems to violate the rules you had set up > earlier where we were only going to be setting the LRU bit while > holding the LRU lock. Hi Alex, Set out of lock here should be fine. I never said we must set the bit in = locking. And this page is get by get_page_unless_zero(), no warry on release. Thanks Alex