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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, 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 C9498CA9EA0 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C91222C3 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2407487AbfJRIiY (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:38:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52764 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405150AbfJRIiX (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:38:23 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C20306A21B; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.118.57] (unknown [10.36.118.57]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526C15D713; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: memory offline infinite loop after soft offline To: Michal Hocko Cc: Naoya Horiguchi , Qian Cai , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Mike Kravetz 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> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat GmbH Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:38:21 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191018082459.GE5017@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.43]); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:38:23 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb