On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 02:52:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 26-03-13 16:59:40, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > [...] > > > diff --git v3.9-rc3.orig/mm/memory-failure.c v3.9-rc3/mm/memory-failure.c > > > index df0694c..4e01082 100644 > > > --- v3.9-rc3.orig/mm/memory-failure.c > > > +++ v3.9-rc3/mm/memory-failure.c > > > @@ -1467,6 +1467,7 @@ static int soft_offline_huge_page(struct page *page, int flags) > > > int ret; > > > unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page); > > > struct page *hpage = compound_head(page); > > > + LIST_HEAD(pagelist); > > > > > > /* > > > * This double-check of PageHWPoison is to avoid the race with > > > @@ -1482,12 +1483,20 @@ static int soft_offline_huge_page(struct page *page, int flags) > > > unlock_page(hpage); > > > > > > /* Keep page count to indicate a given hugepage is isolated. */ > > > - ret = migrate_huge_page(hpage, new_page, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL, > > > - MIGRATE_SYNC); > > > - put_page(hpage); > > > + list_move(&hpage->lru, &pagelist); > > > > we use hpage->lru to add the hpage to h->hugepage_activelist. This will > > break a hugetlb cgroup removal isn't it ? > > This particular part will not break removal because > hugetlb_cgroup_css_offline loops until hugetlb_cgroup_have_usage is 0. Right. > Little bit offtopic: > Btw. hugetlb migration breaks to charging even before this patchset > AFAICS. The above put_page should remove the last reference and then it > will uncharge it but I do not see anything that would charge a new page. > This is all because regula LRU pages are uncharged when they are > unmapped. But this a different story not related to this series. It seems to me that alloc_huge_page_node() needs to call hugetlb_cgroup_charge_cgroup() before dequeuing a new hugepage. Thanks, Naoya -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>