From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302EF6B0265 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 06:34:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id v67so94047650pfv.1 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 03:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ln2si40236485pab.23.2016.09.21.03.34.54 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 03:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u8LAX1jk034644 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 06:34:54 -0400 Received: from e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 25kkb5w3e5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 06:34:53 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:34:51 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242EB1B0804B for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:36:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u8LAYnNl43384918 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:34:49 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u8LAYmEv005984 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:34:49 -0600 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:34:47 +0200 From: Gerald Schaefer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] memory offline issues with hugepage size > memory block size In-Reply-To: <57E175B3.1040802@linux.intel.com> References: <20160920155354.54403-1-gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com> <57E175B3.1040802@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20160921123447.2c3ff33c@thinkpad> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Mike Kravetz , Andrew Morton , Naoya Horiguchi , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Vlastimil Babka , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Rui Teng On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:45:23 -0700 Dave Hansen wrote: > On 09/20/2016 10:37 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > > > Their approach (I believe) would be to fail the offline operation in > > this case. However, I could argue that failing the operation, or > > dissolving the unused huge page containing the area to be offlined is > > the right thing to do. > > I think the right thing to do is dissolve the whole huge page if even a > part of it is offlined. The only question is what to do with the > gigantic remnants. > Hmm, not sure if I got this right, but I thought that by calling update_and_free_page() on the head page (even if it is not part of the memory block to be removed) all parts of the gigantic hugepage should be properly freed and there should not be any remnants left. -- 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