[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181114222321.GB1784@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:23:21 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Hansen <chansen3@...co.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/6] mm: convert PG_balloon to PG_offline
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:17:00PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Rename PG_balloon to PG_offline. This is an indicator that the page is
> logically offline, the content stale and that it should not be touched
> (e.g. a hypervisor would have to allocate backing storage in order for the
> guest to dump an unused page). We can then e.g. exclude such pages from
> dumps.
>
> In following patches, we will make use of this bit also in other balloon
> drivers. While at it, document PGTABLE.
Thank you for documenting PGTABLE. I didn't realise I also had this
document to update when I added PGTABLE.
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst
> @@ -78,6 +78,8 @@ number of times a page is mapped.
> 23. BALLOON
> 24. ZERO_PAGE
> 25. IDLE
> + 26. PGTABLE
> + 27. OFFLINE
So the offline *user* bit is new ... even though the *kernel* bit
just renames the balloon bit. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
I'm going to think about it some more. Could you share your decision
process with us?
I have no objection to renaming the balloon bit inside the kernel; I
think that's a wise idea. I'm just not sure whether we should rename
the user balloon bit rather than adding a new bit.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists