From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Qiang Liu <liuq131@chinatelecom.cn>,
Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/compaction: remove unnecessary detection code.
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:06:18 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd962c73-5362-479f-9e03-6fbda4e3727e@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1cdc0e0-6704-4dc4-a3cf-158fc867db56@suse.cz>
On 2024/11/14 15:52, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/14/24 08:44, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 11/14/24 07:57, Qiang Liu wrote:
>>> It is impossible for the situation where blockpfn > end_pfn to arise,
>>> The if statement here is not only unnecessary, but may also lead to
>>> a misunderstanding that blockpfn > end_pfn could potentially happen.
>>> so these unnecessary checking code should be removed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Qiang Liu <liuq131@chinatelecom.cn>
>>
>> I see that's since 3da0272a4c7d ("mm/compaction: correctly return failure
>> with bogus compound_order in strict mode")
>
> Hm but we still have:
>
> for (; blockpfn < end_pfn; blockpfn += stride, page += stride) {
>
> and this advance by stride can mix up with advance by isolated, initial pfn
> might not be aligned... I don't see any guarantee that the for loop will
> exit with exactly blockpfn == end_pfn, it may easily advance beyond end_pfn
> so we shouldn't remove the check?
Agreed.
>> I think that commit introduced a risk of overflow due to a bogus order
>> (which we read in a racy way), and once blockpfn overflows it will satisfy
>> <= end_pfn and might e.g. end up scanning a completely different zone?
>>
>> if (blockpfn + (1UL << order) <= end_pfn) {
>>
>> blockpfn += (1UL << order) - 1;
>> page += (1UL << order) - 1;
>> nr_scanned += (1UL << order) - 1;
>> }
>>
>> We should better add back the MAX_ORDER sanity check?
>>
>>> ---
>>> mm/compaction.c | 6 ------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>>> index a2b16b08cbbf..baeda7132252 100644
>>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>>> @@ -682,12 +682,6 @@ static unsigned long isolate_freepages_block(struct compact_control *cc,
>>> if (locked)
>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cc->zone->lock, flags);
>>>
>>> - /*
>>> - * Be careful to not go outside of the pageblock.
>>> - */
>>> - if (unlikely(blockpfn > end_pfn))
>>> - blockpfn = end_pfn;
>>> -
>>> trace_mm_compaction_isolate_freepages(*start_pfn, blockpfn,
>>> nr_scanned, total_isolated);
>>>
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-14 10:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-14 6:57 Qiang Liu
2024-11-14 7:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-11-14 7:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-11-14 10:06 ` Baolin Wang [this message]
2024-11-14 9:21 ` Kemeng Shi
2024-11-14 9:37 ` Vlastimil Babka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bd962c73-5362-479f-9e03-6fbda4e3727e@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liuq131@chinatelecom.cn \
--cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox