From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:37:17 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: Warning on memory offline (and possible in usual migration?) Message-Id: <20080423103717.e3afddc6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080423004804.GA14134@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080414145806.c921c927.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080422045205.GH21993@wotan.suse.de> <20080422165608.7ab7026b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080422094352.GB23770@wotan.suse.de> <20080423004804.GA14134@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Christoph Lameter , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , GOTO List-ID: On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:48:04 +0200 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:16:07PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > No, it need not be under IO or in some unstable state. Christoph just > > > said that migration can't handle !uptodate pages, and I'm very > > > curious as to why not, and what is in place to prevent that from > > > happening. > > > > We just assumed that the page was in an unstable state since it was under > > I/O. > > A !uptodate page isn't necessarily under IO. But even if you are assuming > it is in an unstable state, I don't see any code that would prevent it > from trying to migrate an !uptodate page. > > Anyway, here is my proposed (uncompiled, untested) fix. Score 1 for my > buffer invariant checks if I'm right ;) > Thank you!, I'll test this. Regards, -Kame -- 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