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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 CF00FCA9EA3 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A47222C3 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:55:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1571388932; bh=BkTUX5ZhNxJJ7MAAACqIMUomtLgTABx9BtKZ/Ip6ANA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=ZOKyRhhH8HpY6+t1QBnfgyAKhet8aa8bTewpvCHJ7L7RJefYaZdUO5Lmp3Zm2NN7e 79J+1IP2qFjMqvFg9oSHgk6CIdGN54aVGYGA8d+P+iEYXe3Qb5Ka9wDq5XOigCNvfq 8BgzWsR/8ofLBhgbLauwTwZOzobiw+bT3ZpzKi9g= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2394801AbfJRIzb (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:55:31 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39630 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731444AbfJRIza (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:55:30 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE5BB715; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:55:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:55:28 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Naoya Horiguchi , Qian Cai , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Mike Kravetz Subject: Re: memory offline infinite loop after soft offline Message-ID: <20191018085528.GG5017@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1570829564.5937.36.camel@lca.pw> <20191014083914.GA317@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191017093410.GA19973@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20191017100106.GF24485@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1571335633.5937.69.camel@lca.pw> <20191017182759.GN24485@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191018021906.GA24978@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <33946728-bdeb-494a-5db8-e279acebca47@redhat.com> <20191018082459.GE5017@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 18-10-19 10:38:21, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 18.10.19 10:24, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 18-10-19 10:13:36, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > [...] > > > However, if the compound page spans multiple pageblocks > > > > Although hugetlb pages spanning pageblocks are possible this shouldn't > > matter in__test_page_isolated_in_pageblock because this function doesn't > > really operate on pageblocks as the name suggests. It is simply > > traversing all valid RAM ranges (see walk_system_ram_range). > > As long as the hugepages don't span memory blocks/sections, you are right. I > have no experience with gigantic pages in this regard. They can clearly span sections (1GB is larger than 128MB). Why do you think it matters actually? walk_system_ram_range walks RAM ranges and no allocation should span holes in RAM right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs