[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:37:23 +0800
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>, slaoub@...il.com,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memory_hotplug: remove zone restrictions
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:56:50AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> Below is a result with a little changed kernel to show the start_pfn always.
>> The sequence is:
>> 1. bootup
>>
>> Node 0, zone Movable
>> spanned 65536
>> present 0
>> managed 0
>> start_pfn: 0
>>
>> 2. online movable 2 continuous memory_blocks
>>
>> Node 0, zone Movable
>> spanned 65536
>> present 65536
>> managed 65536
>> start_pfn: 1310720
>>
>> 3. offline 2nd memory_blocks
>>
>> Node 0, zone Movable
>> spanned 65536
>> present 32768
>> managed 32768
>> start_pfn: 1310720
>>
>> 4. offline 1st memory_blocks
>>
>> Node 0, zone Movable
>> spanned 65536
>> present 0
>> managed 0
>> start_pfn: 1310720
>>
>> So I am not sure this is still clearly defined?
>
>Could you be more specific what is not clearly defined? You have
>offlined all online memory blocks so present/managed is 0 while the
>spanned is unchanged because the zone is still defined in range
>[1310720, 1376256].
>
The zone is empty after remove these two memory blocks, while we still think
it is defined in range [1310720, 1376256]. This is what I want to point.
>I also do not see how this is related with the discussed patch as there
>is no zone interleaving involved.
I had a patch which fix the behavior, which means we can make sure the zone is
empty after remove these two memory blocks. As you mentioned in the reply,
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg130230.html, I thought you would have
this fixed in this cycle. While it looks we will still have this behavior in
this cycle and looks no intend to fix this?
>--
>Michal Hocko
>SUSE Labs
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists