lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Make is_mem_section_removable more conformable with offlining code
On Tue 31-08-10 22:19:42, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:22:46PM +0800, 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.
>
> Yup, it may also be set to MIGRATE_ISOLATE by soft_offline_page().

Doesn't it make sense to check for !MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE then?

>
> > > 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.
>
> Merge the two checks into an inline function?

This sounds reasonable. I will update my patch as soon as I find a
proper place for the function (I guess include/linux/mmzone.h is the
best place).

>
> > 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).
>
> Feel free to swap the order of tests :)
>
> > >
> > > - 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.
>
> You don't have strong reasons to remove the free pages test, so why
> not keep it?

OK, I think I do understand the free pages test. It just says that
everyting that is free is potentially movable by definition because
nobody uses this memory, right?

> We never know what the user will do. He may regretted
> immediately after onlining a node, and want to offline it.. Some
> hackers may want to offline some 128MB memory blocks (by chance) with
> the help of drop_caches.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-01 14:23    [W:0.084 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site