Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:02:30AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > Now hugepages are definitely movable. So allocating hugepages from
>> > ZONE_MOVABLE is natural and we have no reason to keep this parameter.
>> > In order to allow userspace to prepare for the removal, let's leave
>> > this sysctl handler as noop for a while.
>>
>> I guess you still need to handle architectures for which pmd_huge is
>>
>> int pmd_huge(pmd_t pmd)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> embedded powerpc is one. They don't store pte information at the PMD
>> level. Instead pmd contains a pointer to hugepage directory which
>> contain huge pte.
>
> It seems that this comment is for the whole series, not just for this
> patch, right?
>
> Some users of hugepage migration (mbind, move_pages, migrate_pages)
> walk over page tables to collect hugepages to be migrated, where
> hugepages are just ignored in such architectures due to pmd_huge.
> So no problem for these users.
>
> But the other users (softoffline, memory hotremove) choose hugepages
> to be migrated based on pfn, where they don't check pmd_huge.
> As you wrote, this can be problematic for such architectures.
> So I think of adding pmd_huge() check somewhere (in unmap_and_move_huge_page
> for example) to make it fail for such architectures.
Considering that we have architectures that won't support migrating
explicit hugepages with this patch series, is it ok to use
GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE for hugepage allocation ?
-aneesh
--
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>