From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f199.google.com (mail-wr0-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BF36B03A2 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f199.google.com with SMTP id l44so2193606wrc.11 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6si3733322wmx.83.2017.04.19.04.59.42 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: consider zone which is not fully populated to have holes References: <20170410110351.12215-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170415121734.6692-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170415121734.6692-2-mhocko@kernel.org> <97a658cd-e656-6efa-7725-150063d276f1@suse.cz> <20170418092757.GM22360@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <12814e7e-5ed7-de1f-3e7c-9501eec1682a@suse.cz> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:59:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170418092757.GM22360@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , Jerome Glisse , Reza Arbab , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , qiuxishi@huawei.com, Kani Toshimitsu , slaoub@gmail.com, Joonsoo Kim , Andi Kleen , David Rientjes , Daniel Kiper , Igor Mammedov , Vitaly Kuznetsov , LKML On 04/18/2017 11:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 18-04-17 10:45:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> On 04/15/2017 02:17 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> From: Michal Hocko >>> >> >> My issue with this is that PageReserved can be also set for other >> reasons than offlined block, e.g. by a random driver. So there are two >> suboptimal scenarios: >> >> - PageReserved is set on some page in the middle of pageblock. It won't >> be detected by this patch. This violates the "it would be safer" argument. >> - PageReserved is set on just the first (few) page(s) and because of >> this patch, we skip it completely and won't compact the rest of it. > > Why would that be a big problem? PageReserved is used only very seldom > and few page blocks skipped would seem like a minor issue to me. Yes it's not critical, just suboptimal. Can be improved later. >> So if we decide we really need to check PageReserved to ensure safety, >> then we have to check it on each page. But I hope the existing criteria >> in compaction scanners are sufficient. Unless the semantic is that if >> somebody sets PageReserved, he's free to repurpose the rest of flags at >> his will (IMHO that's not the case). > > I am not aware of any such user. PageReserved has always been about "the > core mm should touch these pages and modify their state" AFAIR. > But I believe that touching those holes just asks for problems so I > would rather have them covered. OK. I guess it's OK to use PageReserved of first pageblock page to determine if we can trust page_zone(), because the memory offline scenario should have sufficient granularity and not make holes inside pageblock? >> The pageblock-level check them becomes a performance optimization so >> when there's an "offline hole", compaction won't iterate it page by >> page. But the downside is the false positive resulting in skipping whole >> pageblock due to single page. >> I guess it's uncommon for a longlived offline holes to exist, so we >> could simply just drop this? > > This is hard to tell but I can imagine that some memory hotplug > balloning drivers might want to offline hole into existing zones. OK. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org