[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181107130655.GE27423@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:06:55 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Oscar Salvador <OSalvador@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memory_hotplug: check zone_movable in
has_unmovable_pages
On Wed 07-11-18 23:53:24, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 08:35:48AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 07-11-18 07:35:18, Balbir Singh wrote:
[...]
> > > The check seems to be quite aggressive and in a loop that iterates
> > > pages, but has nothing to do with the page, did you mean to make
> > > the check
> > >
> > > zone_idx(page_zone(page)) == ZONE_MOVABLE
> >
> > Does it make any difference? Can we actually encounter a page from a
> > different zone here?
> >
>
> Just to avoid page state related issues, do we want to go ahead
> with the migration if zone_idx(page_zone(page)) != ZONE_MOVABLE.
Could you be more specific what kind of state related issues you have in
mind?
> > > it also skips all checks for pinned pages and other checks
> >
> > Yes, this is intentional and the comment tries to explain why. I wish we
> > could be add a more specific checks for movable pages - e.g. detect long
> > term pins that would prevent migration - but we do not have any facility
> > for that. Please note that the worst case of a false positive is a
> > repeated migration failure and user has a way to break out of migration
> > by a signal.
> >
>
> Basically isolate_pages() will fail as opposed to hotplug failing upfront.
> The basic assertion this patch makes is that all ZONE_MOVABLE pages that
> are not reserved are hotpluggable.
Yes, that is correct.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists