From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F53C10F00 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBD32171F for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732221AbfB1JlK (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 04:41:10 -0500 Received: from nat.nue.novell.com ([195.135.221.2]:7465 "EHLO suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725973AbfB1JlJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 04:41:09 -0500 Received: by suse.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B8E943FF; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:41:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:41:08 +0100 From: Oscar Salvador To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com, mike.kravetz@oracle.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm,memory_hotplug: Unlock 1GB-hugetlb on x86_64 Message-ID: <20190228094104.wbeaowsx25ckpcc7@d104.suse.de> References: <20190221094212.16906-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20190228092154.GV10588@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190228092154.GV10588@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:21:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 21-02-19 10:42:12, Oscar Salvador wrote: > [...] > > diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c > > index d5f7afda67db..04f6695b648c 100644 > > --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c > > +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c > > @@ -1337,8 +1337,7 @@ static unsigned long scan_movable_pages(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) > > if (!PageHuge(page)) > > continue; > > head = compound_head(page); > > - if (hugepage_migration_supported(page_hstate(head)) && > > - page_huge_active(head)) > > + if (page_huge_active(head)) > > return pfn; > > skip = (1 << compound_order(head)) - (page - head); > > pfn += skip - 1; > > Is this part correct? Say we have a gigantic page which is migrateable. > Now scan_movable_pages would skip it and we will not migrate it, no? All non-migrateable hugepages should have been caught in has_unmovable_pages: <-- if (PageHuge(page)) { struct page *head = compound_head(page); unsigned int skip_pages; if (!hugepage_migration_supported(page_hstate(head))) goto unmovable; --> So, there is no need to check again for migrateability here, as it is something that does not change. To put it in another way, all huge pages found in scan_movable_pages() should be migrateable. In scan_movable_pages() we just need to check whether the hugepage, gigantic or not, is in use (aka active) to migrate it. > > > @@ -1378,10 +1377,6 @@ do_migrate_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn) > > > > if (PageHuge(page)) { > > struct page *head = compound_head(page); > > - if (compound_order(head) > PFN_SECTION_SHIFT) { > > - ret = -EBUSY; > > - break; > > - } > > pfn = page_to_pfn(head) + (1< > isolate_huge_page(head, &source); > > continue; > > I think it would be much easier to have only this check removed in this > patch. Because it is obviously bogus and wrong as well. The other check > might be considered in a separate patch. I do not have an issue sending both changes separedtly. I mean, this check is the one we need to remove in order to make 1Gb-hugetlb offlining to proceed. The removed check from scan_movable_pages() is only removed because it is redundant as we already checked for that condition in has_unmovable_pages() (when isolating the range). -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3