lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/9] Hugepage migration (v2)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:47:21AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>
> > > Can you also avoid refcounts being increased during migration?
> >
> > Yes. I think this will be done in above-mentioned refactoring.
>
> Thats not what I meant. Can you avoid other processors increasing
> refcounts (direct I/O etc?) on any page struct of the huge page while
> migration is running?

In my understanding, in current code "other processors increasing refcount
during migration" can happen both in non-hugepage direct I/O and in hugepage
direct I/O in the similar way (i.e. get_user_pages_fast() from dio_refill_pages()).
So I think there is no specific problem to hugepage.
Or am I missing your point?

>
> > This patch only handles migration under direct I/O.
> > For the opposite (direct I/O under migration) it's not true.
> > I wrote additional patches (later I'll reply to this email)
> > for solving locking problem. Could you review them?
>
> Sure.
>
> > (Maybe these patches are beyond the scope of hugepage migration patch,
> > so is it better to propose them separately?)
>
> Migration with known races is really not what we want in the kernel.

Yes.

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-16 11:25    [W:0.121 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site