[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32bc6e31-0200-1e8c-895c-3f60ed072fc2@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:13:31 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] mm,memory_hotplug: Allocate memmap from the added
memory range
On 24.03.21 13:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-03-21 13:23:47, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.03.21 13:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 24-03-21 13:03:29, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Wed 24-03-21 11:12:59, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> an additional remark
>>>
>>>>> - online_pages()->move_pfn_range_to_zone(): Accounts for node/zone's spanned pages
>>>>> - online_pages()->zone->present_pages += nr_pages;
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure you shouldn't account vmmemmap pages to the target zone
>>> in some cases - e.g. vmemmap cannot be part of the movable zone, can it?
>>> So this would be yet another special casing. This patch has got it wrong
>>> unless I have missed some special casing.
>>>
>>
>> It's a bit unfortunate that we have to discuss the very basic design
>> decisions again.
>
> It would be great to have those basic design decisions layed out in the
> changelog.
>
>> @Oscar, maybe you can share the links where we discussed all this and add
>> some of it to the patch description.
>>
>> I think what we have right here is good enough for an initial version, from
>> where on we can improve things without having to modify calling code.
>
> I have to say I really dislike vmemmap proliferation into
> {on,off}lining. It just doesn't belong there from a layering POV. All
> this code should care about is to hand over pages to the allocator and
> make them visible.
Well, someone has to initialize the vmemmap of the vmemmap pages ( which
is itself :) ), and as the vemmap does not span complete sections things
can get very weird as we can only set whole sections online (there was
more to that, I think it's buried in previous discussions).
>
> Is that a sufficient concern to nack the whole thing? No, I do not think
> so. But I do not see any particular rush to have this work needs to be
> merged ASAP.
Sure, there is no need to rush (not that I suggested that).
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists