[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 01/14] memory-hotplug: try to offline the memory twice to avoid dependence
Hi Glauber, all,

An old thing I want to discuss with you. :)

On 01/09/2013 11:09 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> memory can't be offlined when CONFIG_MEMCG is selected.
>>>> For example: there is a memory device on node 1. The address range
>>>> is [1G, 1.5G). You will find 4 new directories memory8, memory9, memory10,
>>>> and memory11 under the directory /sys/devices/system/memory/.
>>>> If CONFIG_MEMCG is selected, we will allocate memory to store page cgroup
>>>> when we online pages. When we online memory8, the memory stored page cgroup
>>>> is not provided by this memory device. But when we online memory9, the memory
>>>> stored page cgroup may be provided by memory8. So we can't offline memory8
>>>> now. We should offline the memory in the reversed order.
>>>> When the memory device is hotremoved, we will auto offline memory provided
>>>> by this memory device. But we don't know which memory is onlined first, so
>>>> offlining memory may fail. In such case, iterate twice to offline the memory.
>>>> 1st iterate: offline every non primary memory block.
>>>> 2nd iterate: offline primary (i.e. first added) memory block.
>>>> This idea is suggested by KOSAKI Motohiro.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang<>
>>> Maybe there is something here that I am missing - I admit that I came
>>> late to this one, but this really sounds like a very ugly hack, that
>>> really has no place in here.
>>> Retrying, of course, may make sense, if we have reasonable belief that
>>> we may now succeed. If this is the case, you need to document - in the
>>> code - while is that.
>>> The memcg argument, however, doesn't really cut it. Why can't we make
>>> all page_cgroup allocations local to the node they are describing? If
>>> memcg is the culprit here, we should fix it, and not retry. If there is
>>> still any benefit in retrying, then we retry being very specific about why.
>> We try to make all page_cgroup allocations local to the node they are describing
>> now. If the memory is the first memory onlined in this node, we will allocate
>> it from the other node.
>> For example, node1 has 4 memory blocks: 8-11, and we online it from 8 to 11
>> 1. memory block 8, page_cgroup allocations are in the other nodes
>> 2. memory block 9, page_cgroup allocations are in memory block 8
>> So we should offline memory block 9 first. But we don't know in which order
>> the user online the memory block.
>> I think we can modify memcg like this:
>> allocate the memory from the memory block they are describing
>> I am not sure it is OK to do so.
> I don't see a reason why not.
> You would have to tweak a bit the lookup function for page_cgroup, but
> assuming you will always have the pfns and limits, it should be easy to do.
> I think the only tricky part is that today we have a single
> node_page_cgroup, and we would of course have to have one per memory
> block. My assumption is that the number of memory blocks is limited and
> likely not very big. So even a static array would do.

About the idea "allocate the memory from the memory block they are

|-->memory_notify(MEM_GOING_ONLINE, &arg) ----------- memory of this
section is not in buddy yet.
|-->alloc_page_cgroup() --------- allocate
page_cgroup from buddy system.

When onlining pages, we allocate page_cgroup from buddy. And the being
onlined pages are not in
buddy yet. I think we can reserve some memory in the section for
page_cgroup, and return all the
rest to the buddy.

But when the system is booting,

| |-->mem_init()
| |-->numa_free_all_bootmem() -------------- all the pages are
in buddy system.
|-->alloc_page_cgroup() ------------------ I don't know how
to reserve memory in each section.

So any idea about how to deal with it when the system is booting please?

And one more question, a memory section is 128MB in Linux. If we reserve
part of the them for page_cgroup,
then anyone who wants to allocate a contiguous memory larger than 128MB,
it will fail, right ?
Is it OK ?

Thanks. :)

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-06 05:01    [W:0.164 / U:5.880 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site