From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tang Chen Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:38:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/14] memory-hotplug: try to offline the memory twice to avoid dependence Message-Id: <50EE1B82.4090601@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Id: References: <1356350964-13437-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1356350964-13437-2-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <50D96543.6010903@parallels.com> <50DFD7F7.5090408@cn.fujitsu.com> <50ED8834.1090804@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: <50ED8834.1090804@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Glauber Costa Cc: Wen Congyang , akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, liuj97@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, cl@linux.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, wujianguo@huawei.com, hpa@zytor.com, linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, mgorman@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Hi Glauber, On 01/09/2013 11:09 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: >> >> We try to make all page_cgroup allocations local to the node they are describing >> now. If the memory is the first memory onlined in this node, we will allocate >> it from the other node. >> >> For example, node1 has 4 memory blocks: 8-11, and we online it from 8 to 11 >> 1. memory block 8, page_cgroup allocations are in the other nodes >> 2. memory block 9, page_cgroup allocations are in memory block 8 >> >> So we should offline memory block 9 first. But we don't know in which order >> the user online the memory block. >> >> I think we can modify memcg like this: >> allocate the memory from the memory block they are describing >> >> I am not sure it is OK to do so. > > I don't see a reason why not. I'm not sure, but if we do this, we could bring in a fragment for each memory block (a memory section, 128MB, right?). Is this a problem when we use large page (such as 1GB page) ? Even if not, will these fragments make any bad effects ? Thank. :) > > You would have to tweak a bit the lookup function for page_cgroup, but > assuming you will always have the pfns and limits, it should be easy to do. > > I think the only tricky part is that today we have a single > node_page_cgroup, and we would of course have to have one per memory > block. My assumption is that the number of memory blocks is limited and > likely not very big. So even a static array would do. > > Kamezawa, do you have any input in here? >