lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: gigantic hugepages vs. movable zones
[CC for real]

On Thu 27-07-17 10:12:36, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-07-17 13:30:31, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/27/2017 12:58 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >On Thu 27-07-17 07:52:08, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > >>Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> writes:
> > >>
> > >>>Hi,
> > >>>I've just noticed that alloc_gigantic_page ignores movability of the
> > >>>gigantic page and it uses any existing zone. Considering that
> > >>>hugepage_migration_supported only supports 2MB and pgd level hugepages
> > >>>then 1GB pages are not migratable and as such allocating them from a
> > >>>movable zone will break the basic expectation of this zone. Standard
> > >>>hugetlb allocations try to avoid that by using htlb_alloc_mask and I
> > >>>believe we should do the same for gigantic pages as well.
> > >>>
> > >>>I suspect this behavior is not intentional. What do you think about the
> > >>>following untested patch?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>I also noticed an unrelated issue with the usage of
> > >>start_isolate_page_range. On error we set the migrate type to
> > >>MIGRATE_MOVABLE.
> > >
> > >Why that should be a problem? I think it is perfectly OK to have
> > >MIGRATE_MOVABLE pageblocks inside kernel zones.
> > >
> >
> > we can pick pages with migrate type movable and if we fail to isolate won't
> > we set the migrate type of that pages to MOVABLE ?
>
> I do not see an immediate problem. GFP_KERNEL allocations can fallback
> to movable migrate pageblocks AFAIR. But I am not very much familiar
> with migratetypes. Vlastimil, could you have a look please?

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 10:24    [W:0.055 / U:10.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site