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 C3C2F6B025F for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 22:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f199.google.com with SMTP id r7so33738422wrb.0 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.158.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h11si14405472wrb.480.2017.07.26.19.22.26 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v6R2IvKW067689 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 22:22:25 -0400 Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (e23smtp06.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.148]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2by1jxnrxe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 22:22:25 -0400 Received: from localhost by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:22:22 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay08.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v6R2MIEk22544460 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:22:18 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id v6R2M9ir019025 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:22:09 +1000 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: gigantic hugepages vs. movable zones In-Reply-To: <20170726105004.GI2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170726105004.GI2981@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:52:08 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <87inie1uwf.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko , Luiz Capitulino , Mike Kravetz Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Michal Hocko writes: > Hi, > I've just noticed that alloc_gigantic_page ignores movability of the > gigantic page and it uses any existing zone. Considering that > hugepage_migration_supported only supports 2MB and pgd level hugepages > then 1GB pages are not migratable and as such allocating them from a > movable zone will break the basic expectation of this zone. Standard > hugetlb allocations try to avoid that by using htlb_alloc_mask and I > believe we should do the same for gigantic pages as well. > > I suspect this behavior is not intentional. What do you think about the > following untested patch? I also noticed an unrelated issue with the usage of start_isolate_page_range. On error we set the migrate type to MIGRATE_MOVABLE. That may conflict with CMA pages ? Wondering whether we should check for page's pageblock migrate type in pfn_range_valid_gigantic() ? -aneesh -- 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