[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 16:07:09 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Oscar Salvador" <osalvador@...e.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Sasha Levin" <sashal@...nel.org>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
"Joonsoo Kim" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Linux Doc Mailing List" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] mm/gup: migrate pinned pages out of movable zone
On 12/11/20 3:00 PM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>> I guess revert what we did (unpin) and return an error. The interesting question is what can make migration/isolation fail
>
> OK. I will make the necessary changes. Let's handle errors properly.
> Whatever the cause for the error, we will know it when it happens, and
> when error is returned. I think I will add a 10-time retry instead of
> the infinite retry that we currently have. The 10-times retry we
> currently have during the hot-remove path.
It occurs to me that maybe the pre-existing infinite loop shouldn't be
there at all? Would it be better to let the callers retry? Obviously that
would be a separate patch and I'm not sure it's safe to make that change,
but the current loop seems buried maybe too far down.
Thoughts, anyone?
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists