From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:25:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Warning on memory offline (and possible in usual migration?) In-Reply-To: <20080501014418.GB15179@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20080422045205.GH21993@wotan.suse.de> <20080422165608.7ab7026b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080422094352.GB23770@wotan.suse.de> <20080423004804.GA14134@wotan.suse.de> <20080429162016.961aa59d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080430065611.GH27652@wotan.suse.de> <20080430001249.c07ff5c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080430072620.GI27652@wotan.suse.de> <20080501014418.GB15179@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , GOTO List-ID: On Thu, 1 May 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > Yes if PageUptodate and the page is locked, then I don't believe > any read IO should happen. Ok so page migration should check for that and not migrate a page that is !Uptodate? > But you definitely do seem to be migrating !PageUptodate pages. In > that case I think it works because of buffer_migrate_page which takes > the buffer locks and holds off read IO to buffers too. Comes about because memory offlining gets to pages that are not mapped into a process address space. -- 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