[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100818074623.GA6866@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:46:23 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.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 Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:32:34PM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:40:08AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > When get_user_pages_fast() is called before try_to_unmap(),
> > > direct I/O code increments refcount on the target page.
> > > Because this refcount is not associated to the mapping,
> > > migration code will find remaining refcounts after try_to_unmap()
> > > unmaps all mappings. Then refcount check decides migration to fail,
> > > so direct I/O is continued safely.
> >
> > This would imply that direct IO can make migration fail arbitarily.
> > Also not good. Should we add some retries, at least for the soft offline
> > case?
>
> Soft offline is kicked from userspace, so the retry logic can be implemented
> in userspace. However, currently we can't distinguish migration failure from
I don't think user space is the right place for retry logic.
It doesn't really have enough information to make a good decision when
to reply.
Also I would consider requiring user space to work around kernel problems like
that bad design.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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