[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100831143649.GA31730@localhost>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:36:49 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with
offlining code
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:19:42PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:22:46PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 22-08-10 08:42:32, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Hi Michal,
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > >
> > > It helps to explain in changelog/code
> > >
> > > - in what situation a ZONE_MOVABLE will contain !MIGRATE_MOVABLE
> > > pages?
> >
> > page can be MIGRATE_RESERVE IIUC.
>
> Yup, it may also be set to MIGRATE_ISOLATE by soft_offline_page().
Ah a non-movable page allocation could fall back into the movable
zone. See __rmqueue_fallback() and the fallbacks[][] array. So the
if (type != MIGRATE_MOVABLE && !pageblock_free(page))
check in is_mem_section_removable() is correct. It is
set_migratetype_isolate() that should be fixed to use the same check.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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