[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57E175B3.1040802@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:45:23 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Rui Teng <rui.teng@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] memory offline issues with hugepage size > memory
block size
On 09/20/2016 10:37 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>
> Their approach (I believe) would be to fail the offline operation in
> this case. However, I could argue that failing the operation, or
> dissolving the unused huge page containing the area to be offlined is
> the right thing to do.
I think the right thing to do is dissolve the whole huge page if even a
part of it is offlined. The only question is what to do with the
gigantic remnants.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists