[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53690FCD-B0BA-4619-8DF1-B9D721EE1208@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:51:33 -0800
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@...dia.com>,
Nitin Gupta <nigupta@...dia.com>,
David Nellans <dnellans@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/31] mm: migrate: Add exchange_pages to exchange two
lists of pages.
On 18 Feb 2019, at 9:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 2/18/19 6:31 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
>> The purpose of proposing exchange_pages() is to avoid allocating any
>> new
>> page,
>> so that we would not trigger any potential page reclaim or memory
>> compaction.
>> Allocating a temporary page defeats the purpose.
>
> Compaction can only happen for order > 0 temporary pages. Even if you
> used
> single order = 0 page to gradually exchange e.g. a THP, it should be
> better than
> u64. Allocating order = 0 should be a non-issue. If it's an issue,
> then the
> system is in a bad state and physically contiguous layout is a
> secondary concern.
You are right if we only need to allocate one order-0 page. But this
also means
we can only exchange two pages at a time. We need to add a lock to make
sure
the temporary page is used exclusively or we need to keep allocating
temporary pages
when multiple exchange_pages() are happening at the same time.
--
Best Regards,
Yan Zi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists