lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/10] memory-hotplug: enable memory hotplug to handle hugepage
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Naoya Horiguchi
<n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:27:44PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> >> numa_node_id() is really silly. This might lead to allocate from offlining node.
>> >
>> > Right, it should've been alloc_huge_page().
>> >
>> >> and, offline_pages() should mark hstate as isolated likes normal pages for prohibiting
>> >> new allocation at first.
>> >
>> > It seems that alloc_migrate_target() calls alloc_page() for normal pages
>> > and the destination pages can be in the same node with the source pages
>> > (new page allocation from the same memblock are prohibited.)
>>
>> No. It can't. memory hotplug change buddy attribute to MIGRATE_ISOLTE at first.
>> then alloc_page() never allocate from source node. however huge page don't use
>> buddy. then we need another trick.
>
> MIGRATE_ISOLTE is changed only within the range [start_pfn, end_pfn)
> given as the argument of __offline_pages (see also start_isolate_page_range),
> so it's set only for pages within the single memblock to be offlined.

When partial memory hot remove, that's correct behavior. different
node is not required.


> BTW, in previous discussion I already agreed with checking migrate type
> in hugepage allocation code (maybe it will be in dequeue_huge_page_vma(),)
> so what you concern should be solved in the next post.

Umm.. Maybe I missed such discussion. Do you have a pointer?


>> > So if we want to avoid new page allocation from the same node,
>> > this is the problem both for normal and huge pages.
>> >
>> > BTW, is it correct to think that all users of memory hotplug assume
>> > that they want to hotplug a whole node (not the part of it?)
>>
>> Both are valid use case. admin can isolate a part of memory for isolating
>> broken memory range.
>>
>> but I'm sure almost user want to remove whole node.
>
> OK. So I think about "allocation in the nearest neighbor node",
> although it can be in separate patch if it's hard to implement.

That's fine.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-10 04:41    [W:0.120 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site