From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3F76B20AD for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:35:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id x1-v6so1422127edh.8 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:35:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.nue.novell.com (smtp.nue.novell.com. [195.135.221.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m1si8355293edj.174.2018.11.20.07.35.06 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:35:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1542726815.6817.8.camel@suse.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm, memory_hotplug: deobfuscate migration part of offlining From: osalvador Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:13:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20181120134323.13007-3-mhocko@kernel.org> References: <20181120134323.13007-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20181120134323.13007-3-mhocko@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Andrew Morton , Pavel Tatashin , David Hildenbrand , LKML , Michal Hocko > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko [...] > + do { > + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn;) > + { > + /* start memory hot removal */ Should we change thAT comment? I mean, this is not really the hot- removal stage. Maybe "start memory migration" suits better? or memory offlining? > + ret = -EINTR; > + if (signal_pending(current)) { > + reason = "signal backoff"; > + goto failed_removal_isolated; > + } > > - cond_resched(); > - lru_add_drain_all(); > - drain_all_pages(zone); > + cond_resched(); > + lru_add_drain_all(); > + drain_all_pages(zone); > > - pfn = scan_movable_pages(start_pfn, end_pfn); > - if (pfn) { /* We have movable pages */ > - ret = do_migrate_range(pfn, end_pfn); > - goto repeat; > - } > + pfn = scan_movable_pages(pfn, end_pfn); > + if (pfn) { > + /* TODO fatal migration failures > should bail out */ > + do_migrate_range(pfn, end_pfn); > + } > + } > + > + /* > + * dissolve free hugepages in the memory block > before doing offlining > + * actually in order to make hugetlbfs's object > counting consistent. > + */ > + ret = dissolve_free_huge_pages(start_pfn, end_pfn); > + if (ret) { > + reason = "failure to dissolve huge pages"; > + goto failed_removal_isolated; > + } > + /* check again */ > + offlined_pages = check_pages_isolated(start_pfn, > end_pfn); > + } while (offlined_pages < 0); > > - /* > - * dissolve free hugepages in the memory block before doing > offlining > - * actually in order to make hugetlbfs's object counting > consistent. > - */ > - ret = dissolve_free_huge_pages(start_pfn, end_pfn); > - if (ret) { > - reason = "failure to dissolve huge pages"; > - goto failed_removal_isolated; > - } > - /* check again */ > - offlined_pages = check_pages_isolated(start_pfn, end_pfn); > - if (offlined_pages < 0) > - goto repeat; This indeed looks much nicer and it is easier to follow. With the changes commented by David: Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador