[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a6b47162-d975-afef-473f-dccb677fefe6@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 11:28:56 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Make alloc_contig_range handle Hugetlb pages
On 15.03.21 11:27, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:06:40AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> BTW, I stumbled yesterday over
>>
>> alloc_contig_pages()->pfn_range_valid_contig():
>>
>> if (page_count(page) > 0)
>> rerurn false;
>> if (PageHuge(page))
>> return false;
>>
>> As used by memtrace and for gigantic pages. We can now
>>
>> a) Drop these check completely, as it's best-effort only and racy.
>> alloc_contig_pages()/alloc_contig_range() will handle it properly.
>>
>> b) Similarly, check for gigantic pages and/or movability/migratability.
>>
>> Dropping both checks might be the right thing to do: might significantly
>> increase allocation chances -- as we actually end up migrating busy pages
>> ...
>
> Oh, sorry David, my mail client tricked me and I did not see this till now.
>
> I will have a look, but I would like to collect some more feedback from all
> pieces before going any further and write a new version.
> Vlastimil patch#1 and patch#2 and he was ok with them, but let see what others
> think as well.
Planning on having a detailed look at the patches. Fairly busy though
... :(
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists