[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aOa_A_i1HUt1wzCj@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 15:44:03 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, corbet@....net, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
osalvador@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
laoar.shao@...il.com, brauner@...nel.org, mclapinski@...gle.com,
joel.granados@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexander00@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm, hugetlb: remove hugepages_treat_as_movable
sysctl"
On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 09:01:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >
> > fwiw this works cleanly. Just dropping this here, but should continue
> > the zone conversation. I need to check, but does this actually allow
> > pinnable allocations? I thought pinning kicked off migration.
>
> Yes, it should because longterm pinning -> unmovable.
>
You know i just realized, my test here only works before I allocated 1GB
pages on both node0 and node1. If I only allocate 1gb hugetlb on node1,
then the migrate pages call fails - because there are no 1gb pages
available there.
I imagine this would cause hot-unplug/offline to fail since it uses the
same migration mechanisms.
Worse I would imagine this would fail for 2MB.
Seems like the 1GB limitation is arbitrary if 2MB causes the same issue.
~Gregory
Powered by blists - more mailing lists