[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] mm,memory_hotplug: Unlock 1GB-hugetlb on x86_64
On 2/27/19 1:51 PM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:42:12AM +0100, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>> [1]
>> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <>
> Any further comments on this?
> I do have a "concern" I would like to sort out before dropping the RFC:
> It is the fact that unless we have spare gigantic pages in other notes, the
> offlining operation will loop forever (until the customer cancels the operation).
> While I do not really like that, I do think that memory offlining should be done
> with some sanity, and the administrator should know in advance if the system is going
> to be able to keep up with the memory pressure, aka: make sure we got what we need in
> order to make the offlining operation to succeed.
> That translates to be sure that we have spare gigantic pages and other nodes
> can take them.
> Given said that, another thing I thought about is that we could check if we have
> spare gigantic pages at has_unmovable_pages() time.
> Something like checking "h->free_huge_pages - h->resv_huge_pages > 0", and if it
> turns out that we do not have gigantic pages anywhere, just return as we have
> non-movable pages.

Of course, that check would be racy. Even if there is an available gigantic
page at has_unmovable_pages() time there is no guarantee it will be there when
we want to allocate/use it. But, you would at least catch 'most' cases of
looping forever.

> But I would rather not convulate has_unmovable_pages() with such checks and "trust"
> the administrator.

Mike Kravetz

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-27 23:01    [W:0.074 / U:5.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site