From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:56:19 +0000 Subject: Re: migratepage failures on reiserfs Message-ID: <20071107145619.GA32737@skynet.ie> References: <20071030135442.5d33c61c@think.oraclecorp.com> <1193781245.8904.28.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20071030185840.48f5a10b@think.oraclecorp.com> <1193847261.17412.13.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20071031134006.2ecd520b@think.oraclecorp.com> <1193935137.26106.5.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20071101115103.62de4b2e@think.oraclecorp.com> <1193940626.26106.13.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20071105102335.GA6272@skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: From: mel@skynet.ie (Mel Gorman) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Badari Pulavarty , Chris Mason , reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , linux-fsdevel List-ID: On (05/11/07 14:46), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > The grow_dev_page() pages should be reclaimable even though migration > > is not supported for those pages? They were marked movable as it was > > useful for lumpy reclaim taking back pages for hugepage allocations and > > the like. Would it make sense for memory unremove to attempt migration > > first and reclaim second? > > Note that a page is still movable even if there is no file system method > for migration available. In that case the page needs to be cleaned before > it can be moved. > Badari, do you know if the pages failed to migrate because they were dirty or because the filesystem simply had ownership of the pages and wouldn't let them go? -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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