[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: gigantic hugepages vs. movable zones
On 07/27/2017 10:22 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [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 <> 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
>>>> 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 ?

Yes, it seems we can silently kill CMA pageblocks in such case. Joonsoo,
can you check?

>> 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?

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 13:58    [W:0.034 / U:20.248 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site