Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm, hugetlb: remove hugepages_treat_as_movable sysctl"

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 08.10.25 20:58, Gregory Price wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 04:44:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.10.25 16:18, Gregory Price wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 10:58:23AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 07.10.25 23:44, Gregory Price wrote:
>>>> I mean, this is as ugly as it gets.
>>>>
>>>> Can't we just let that old approach RIP where it belongs? :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely - just found this previously existed and wanted to probe for
>>> how offensive reintroducing it would be. Seems the answer is essentially
>>> "lets do it a little differently".
>>>
>>>> Something I could sympathize is is treaing gigantic pages that are actually
>>>> migratable as movable.
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>> -       gfp |= hugepage_movable_supported(h) ? GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE : GFP_HIGHUSER;
>>>> +       gfp |= hugepage_migration_supported(h) ? GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE : GFP_HIGHUSER;
>>>>
>>>> Assume you want to offline part of the ZONE_MOVABLE there might still be sufficient
>>>> space to possibly allocate a 1 GiB area elsewhere and actually move the gigantic page.
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, we do the same for memory offlining already.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is generally true of other page sizes as well, though, isn't it?
>>> If the system is truly so pressured that it can't successfully move a
>>> 2MB page - offline may still fail.  So allowing 1GB pages is only a risk
>>> in the sense that they're harder to allocate new targets.
>>
>> Right, but memory defragmentation works on pageblock level, so 2 MiB is much
>> MUCH more reliable :)
>>
> 
> fwiw this works cleanly.  Just dropping this here, but should continue
> the zone conversation.  I need to check, but does this actually allow
> pinnable allocations?  I thought pinning kicked off migration.

Yes, it should because longterm pinning -> unmovable.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb