[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180413171120.GA1245@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:11:20 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] mm: introduce PG_offline
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 03:16:26PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> online_pages()/offline_pages() theoretically allows us to work on
> sub-section sizes. This is especially relevant in the context of
> virtualization. It e.g. allows us to add/remove memory to Linux in a VM in
> 4MB chunks.
>
> While the whole section is marked as online/offline, we have to know
> the state of each page. E.g. to not read memory that is not online
> during kexec() or to properly mark a section as offline as soon as all
> contained pages are offline.
Can you not use PG_reserved for this purpose?
> + * PG_offline indicates that a page is offline and the backing storage
> + * might already have been removed (virtualization). Don't touch!
* PG_reserved is set for special pages, which can never be swapped out. Some
* of them might not even exist...
They seem pretty congruent to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists