From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@linux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:30:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100831123032.GA30475@tiehlicka.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100823092246.GA25772@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Hi,
On Mon 23-08-10 11:22:46, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 22-08-10 08:42:32, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
>
> Hi,
>
> >
> > It helps to explain in changelog/code
> >
> > - in what situation a ZONE_MOVABLE will contain !MIGRATE_MOVABLE
> > pages?
>
> page can be MIGRATE_RESERVE IIUC.
>
> > And why the MIGRATE_MOVABLE test is still necessary given the
> > ZONE_MOVABLE check?
>
> I would assume that the MIGRATE_MOVABLE test is not necessary (given that
> the whole zone is set as movable) but this test is used also in the
> offlining path (in set_migratetype_isolate) and the primary reason for
> this patch is to sync those two checks.
>
> I am not familiar with all the possible cases for migrate flags so the
> test reduction should be better done by someone more familiar with the
> code (the zone flag test is much more easier than the whole
> get_pageblock_migratetype so this could be a win in the end).
>
> >
> > - why do you think free pages are not removeable? Simply to cater for
> > the set_migratetype_isolate() logic, or there are more fundamental
> > reasons?
>
> Free pages can be from non movable zone, right? I know that having a
> zone with the free page blocks in non-movable zone is extremely
> improbable but what is the point of this check anyway? So yes, this is
> more to be in sync than anything more fundamental.
Are there any other comments on this? Is the patch reasonable at all?
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:14:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > what do you think about the patch below?
> > >
> > > >From b983695b92b5be58f31c719fada1d3245f7b6768 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> > > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:39:16 +0200
> > > Subject: [PATCH] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code
> > >
> > > Currently is_mem_section_removable checks whether each pageblock from
> > > the given pfn range is of MIGRATE_MOVABLE type or if it is free. If both
> > > are false then the range is considered non removable.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, offlining code (more specifically
> > > set_migratetype_isolate) doesn't care whether a page is free and instead
> > > it just checks the migrate type of the page and whether the page's zone
> > > is movable.
> > >
> > > This can lead into a situation when a node is marked as removable even
> > > though all pages are neither MIGRATE_MOVABLE nor the zone is
> > > ZONE_MOVABLE.
> > >
> > > Also we can mark a node as not removable just because a pageblock is
> > > MIGRATE_RESERVE and not free (and this situation is much more probable).
> > > ---
> > > mm/memory_hotplug.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > index a4cfcdc..da20568 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> > > @@ -611,10 +611,10 @@ int is_mem_section_removable(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages)
> > > type = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > - * A pageblock containing MOVABLE or free pages is considered
> > > - * removable
> > > + * A pageblock containing MOVABLE or page from movable
> > > + * zone are considered removable
> > > */
> > > - if (type != MIGRATE_MOVABLE && !pageblock_free(page))
> > > + if (type != MIGRATE_MOVABLE && zone_idx(page) != ZONE_MOVABLE)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > /*
--
Michal Hocko
L3 team
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-31 12:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-20 14:14 [PATCH] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code Michal Hocko
2010-08-22 0:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-23 9:22 ` Michal Hocko
2010-08-31 12:30 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2010-08-31 14:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-31 14:36 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-31 14:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-01 1:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-01 12:19 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-01 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 5:45 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-02 8:28 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 9:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-02 9:24 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 11:19 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
2010-09-02 13:18 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 14:19 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
2010-09-02 14:39 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-02 15:05 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 3:10 ` [PATCH 0/2 v2] " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 3:11 ` [PATCH 1/2][BUGFIX] fix next active pageblock calculation KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 3:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 8:25 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 10:05 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 11:01 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 11:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code v3 Michal Hocko
2010-09-04 2:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-06 9:16 ` Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 9:24 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 7:54 ` [PATCH 0/2 v2] " Michal Hocko
2010-09-03 7:57 ` [PATCH 3/2][BUGFIX] fix memory isolation notifier return value check KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-09-03 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 22:05 ` Hiroyuki Kamezawa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100831123032.GA30475@tiehlicka.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi.kleen@intel.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=haicheng.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).