[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008130744550.27542@router.home>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:47:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Hugepage migration (v2)
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > Can you also avoid refcounts being increased during migration?
>
> Yes. I think this will be done in above-mentioned refactoring.
Thats not what I meant. Can you avoid other processors increasing
refcounts (direct I/O etc?) on any page struct of the huge page while
migration is running?
> This patch only handles migration under direct I/O.
> For the opposite (direct I/O under migration) it's not true.
> I wrote additional patches (later I'll reply to this email)
> for solving locking problem. Could you review them?
Sure.
> (Maybe these patches are beyond the scope of hugepage migration patch,
> so is it better to propose them separately?)
Migration with known races is really not what we want in the kernel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists