[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170727081236.GK20970@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:12:36 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gigantic hugepages vs. movable zones
On Thu 27-07-17 13:30:31, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
>
> On 07/27/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Thu 27-07-17 07:52:08, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >>Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>I've just noticed that alloc_gigantic_page ignores movability of the
> >>>gigantic page and it uses any existing zone. Considering that
> >>>hugepage_migration_supported only supports 2MB and pgd level hugepages
> >>>then 1GB pages are not migratable and as such allocating them from a
> >>>movable zone will break the basic expectation of this zone. Standard
> >>>hugetlb allocations try to avoid that by using htlb_alloc_mask and I
> >>>believe we should do the same for gigantic pages as well.
> >>>
> >>>I suspect this behavior is not intentional. What do you think about the
> >>>following untested patch?
> >>
> >>
> >>I also noticed an unrelated issue with the usage of
> >>start_isolate_page_range. On error we set the migrate type to
> >>MIGRATE_MOVABLE.
> >
> >Why that should be a problem? I think it is perfectly OK to have
> >MIGRATE_MOVABLE pageblocks inside kernel zones.
> >
>
> we can pick pages with migrate type movable and if we fail to isolate won't
> we set the migrate type of that pages to MOVABLE ?
I do not see an immediate problem. GFP_KERNEL allocations can fallback
to movable migrate pageblocks AFAIR. But I am not very much familiar
with migratetypes. Vlastimil, could you have a look please?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists