2020년 7월 4일 (토) 오전 12:56, Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > On 6/23/20 8:13 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > From: Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]> > > > > There is a well-defined migration target allocation callback. > > It's mostly similar with new_non_cma_page() except considering CMA pages. > > > > This patch adds a CMA consideration to the standard migration target > > allocation callback and use it on gup.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]> > > But a suggestion below. > > > --- > > mm/gup.c | 57 > > ++++++++------------------------------------------------- > > mm/internal.h | 1 + > > mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- > > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > > index 15be281..f6124e3 100644 > > --- a/mm/gup.c > > +++ b/mm/gup.c > > @@ -1608,56 +1608,15 @@ static bool check_dax_vmas(struct vm_area_struct > > **vmas, long nr_pages) > > } > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CMA > > -static struct page *new_non_cma_page(struct page *page, unsigned long > > private) > > +static struct page *alloc_migration_target_non_cma(struct page *page, > > unsigned long private) > > { > > ... > > > + struct migration_target_control mtc = { > > + .nid = page_to_nid(page), > > + .gfp_mask = GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN, > > + .skip_cma = true, > > + }; > > > > - return __alloc_pages_node(nid, gfp_mask, 0); > > + return alloc_migration_target(page, (unsigned long)&mtc); > > Do we really need this wrapper? The only user is check_and_migrate_cma_pages > so > just opencode it?
This wrapper exists for setting up a different nid for each page. However, as you suggested in the next reply, we can remove this wrapper if NUMA_NO_NODE handling is added to the standard function. I will add NUMA_NO_NODE handling to the standard function and remove this wrapper. Thanks.
