On Thu 26-07-18 10:22:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.07.2018 09:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 23-07-18 19:12:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 23.07.2018 13:45, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>> On 07/20/2018 02:34 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>> Dumping tools (like makedumpfile) right now don't exclude reserved pages.
> >>>> So reserved pages might be access by dump tools although nobody except
> >>>> the owner should touch them.
> >>>
> >>> Are you sure about that? Or maybe I understand wrong. Maybe it changed
> >>> recently, but IIRC pages that are backing memmap (struct pages) are also
> >>> PG_reserved. And you definitely do want those in the dump.
> >>
> >> I proposed a new flag/value to mask pages that are logically offline but
> >> Michal wanted me to go into this direction.
> >>
> >> While we can special case struct pages in dump tools ("we have to
> >> read/interpret them either way, so we can also dump them"), it smells
> >> like my original attempt was cleaner. Michal?
> >
> > But we do not have many page flags spare and even if we have one or two
> > this doesn't look like the use for them. So I still think we should try
> > the PageReserved way.
> >
>
> So as a summary, the only real approach that would be acceptable is
> using PageReserved + some other identifier to mark pages as "logically
> offline".
>
> I wonder what identifier could be used, as this has to be consistent for
> all reserved pages (to avoid false positives).
>
> Using other pageflags in combination might be possible, but then we have
> to make assumptions about all users of PageReserved right now.
>
> As far as I can see (and as has been discussed), page_type could be
> used. If we don't want to consume a new bit, we could overload/reuse the
> "PG_balloon" bit.
>
>
> E.g. "PG_balloon" set -> exclude page from dump
Does each user of PG_balloon check for PG_reserved? If this is the case
then yes this would be OK.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
