From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031538E0001 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 05:23:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id l45so755809edb.1 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 02:23:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m3-v6si3295101ejb.316.2019.01.23.02.23.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 02:23:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:22:42 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,memory_hotplug: Fix scan_movable_pages for gigantic hugepages Message-ID: <20190123102242.GT4087@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20190122154407.18417-1-osalvador@suse.de> <20190123094717.GQ4087@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190123101838.qxsapn4dhcergs6t@d104.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190123101838.qxsapn4dhcergs6t@d104.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Oscar Salvador Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com On Wed 23-01-19 11:18:42, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:47:17AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So this should be probably folded into the above patch as it is > > incomplete unless I am missing something. > > Well, they are triggered from different paths. > The former error was triggered in: > > removable_show > is_mem_section_removable > is_pageblock_removable_nolock > has_unmovable_pages > > while this one is triggered when actually doing the offline operation But it would trigger from the offline path as well, no? > __offline_pages > scan_movable_pages > > But I do agree that one without the other is not really useful, an incomplete. > The truth is that I did not spot this one when fixing [1] because I did not > really try to offline the memblock back then, so my fault. I should have noticed that during the review but those paths are really far away from each other so this is hard to spot indeed > While I agree that the best approach would be to fold this one into [1], > I am not sure if it is too late for that as it seems that [1] was already > released into mainline, and moreover to stable. OK, I wasn't aware of that. Then my suggestion is clearly moot. > I guess I will have Andrew decide what is the best way to carry on here. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10739963/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador > > > > Other than that the change looks good to me. > > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko > > Thanks! > -- > Oscar Salvador > SUSE L3 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs