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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 8ADF1C433DB for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D6764EFC for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:16:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 04D6764EFC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 74FBD6B006C; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 726306B0070; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:16:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5C90F6B0073; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:16:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0084.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.84]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416156B006C for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 11:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE6C824999B for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:16:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77929716900.26.51785A8 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A247900D513 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:03:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1615993388; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XDuPjp7BEes6OHtrHNguHTbGDgjyn3FaVWHB19dgYGI=; b=b8SaaMUNv2Cm99H31+5dvMWWSVbxBXdSY+AN9iWtLWu+urnoeyat2IcKpOlvIvClf+racZ bwo0AJKK3UDz4RYhHw3UOhpf8IMG8XhtkLjNQdQXsG9BDb1ahHnfT5qEgngFL9S6J8bvjp 3NsSwUMNWglMT8Cz04J82aVw6aXnbVE= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EA0AE62; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 16:03:06 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Oscar Salvador , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Muchun Song , Mike Kravetz , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] mm,page_alloc: Drop unnecessary checks from pfn_range_valid_contig Message-ID: References: <20210317111251.17808-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20210317111251.17808-6-osalvador@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: 5uupu3ochr1su7pgr4ihyww4ewx6j1m7 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9A247900D513 Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf19; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1615993389-815004 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: On Wed 17-03-21 15:36:35, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 17.03.21 15:31, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 17-03-21 12:12:51, Oscar Salvador wrote: > > > pfn_range_valid_contig() bails out when it finds an in-use page or a > > > hugetlb page, among other things. > > > We can drop the in-use page check since __alloc_contig_pages can migrate > > > away those pages, and the hugetlb page check can go too since > > > isolate_migratepages_range is now capable of dealing with hugetlb pages. > > > Either way, those checks are racy so let the end function handle it > > > when the time comes. > > > > I haven't realized PageHuge check is done this early. This means that > > previous patches are not actually active until now which is not really > > greate for bisectability. Can we remove the HugePage check earlier? > > alloc_contig_pages() vs. alloc_contig_range(). The patches are active for > virtio-mem and CMA AFAIKS. yeah, I meant to say "are not actually fully active". -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs