Hi Yunsheng, 

[...]

+	 * 1. 'n == 1': no need to actually overwrite it.
+	 * 2. 'n != 1': overwrite it with one, which is the rare case
+	 *              for pp_frag_count draining.
 	 *
-	 * The main advantage to doing this is that an atomic_read is
-	 * generally a much cheaper operation than an atomic update,
-	 * especially when dealing with a page that may be partitioned
-	 * into only 2 or 3 pieces.
+	 * The main advantage to doing this is that not only we avoid a atomic
+	 * update, as an atomic_read is generally a much cheaper operation than
+	 * an atomic update, especially when dealing with a page that may be
+	 * partitioned into only 2 or 3 pieces; but also unify the pp_frag_count
+	 * handling by ensuring all pages have partitioned into only 1 piece
+	 * initially, and only overwrite it when the page is partitioned into
+	 * more than one piece.
 	 */
-	if (atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr)
+	if (atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr) {
+		/* As we have ensured nr is always one for constant case using
+		 * the BUILD_BUG_ON(), only need to handle the non-constant case
+		 * here for pp_frag_count draining, which is a rare case.
+		 */
+		BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(nr) && nr != 1);
+		if (!__builtin_constant_p(nr))
+			atomic_long_set(&page->pp_frag_count, 1);

Aren't we changing the behaviour of the current code here? IIRC is
atomic_long_read(&page->pp_frag_count) == nr we never updated the atomic
pp_frag_count and the reasoning was that the next caller can set it
properly. 

+
 		return 0;
+	}
 
 	ret = atomic_long_sub_return(nr, &page->pp_frag_count);
 	WARN_ON(ret < 0);
+
+	/* We are the last user here too, reset pp_frag_count back to 1 to
+	 * ensure all pages have been partitioned into 1 piece initially,
+	 * this should be the rare case when the last two fragment users call
+	 * page_pool_defrag_page() currently.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(!ret))
+		atomic_long_set(&page->pp_frag_count, 1);
+
 	return ret;
 }
 

 
 [....]

 Thanks
 /Ilias