Re: [PATCH RFC 08/29] mm/migrate: rename putback_movable_folio() to putback_movable_ops_page()
From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Date: 2025-06-18 19:26:03
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml, virtualization
On 18 Jun 2025, at 15:18, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 03:10:10PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:quoted
On 18 Jun 2025, at 13:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:quoted
+ /* + * TODO: these pages will not be folios in the future. All + * folio dependencies will have to be removed. + */ + struct folio *folio = page_folio(page); + + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(!PageIsolated(page), page); + folio_lock(folio); + /* If the page was released by it's owner, there is nothing to do. */ + if (PageMovable(page)) + page_movable_ops(page)->putback_page(page); + ClearPageIsolated(page); + folio_unlock(folio); + folio_put(folio);Why not use page version of lock, unlock, and put? Especially you are thinking about not using folio for these pages. Just a question, I am OK with current patch.That would reintroduce unnecessary calls to compound_head().
Got it. But here page is not folio, so it cannot be a compound page. Then, we will need page versions without compound_head() for non compound pages. Could that happen in the future when only folio can be compound and page is only order-0? Best Regards, Yan, Zi