On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:13 -0600, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 07:39 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Seth,
> > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 15:40 -0600, Seth Jennings wrote:
>
> >> Performance, Kernel Building:
> >>
> >> Setup
> >>
Hi Tang,
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 10:42 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
I confuse!
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 02/01/2013 10:17 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> 64TB, what ever
> >>
Hi Tang,
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:57 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 09:36 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So if config NUMA, kernel memory will not be linear mapping anymore? For
> >
Hi Jianguo,
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:57 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2013/2/1 9:36, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> >> On 2013/1/31 18:38, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Tang,
> >>> On Thu,
Hi Seth,
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 15:40 -0600, Seth Jennings wrote:
> Sorry for the churn but just this set might be easier to review.
> The code required for the flushing is in a separate patch now
> as requested.
>
> Changelog:
>
> v4:
> * Added Acks (Minchan)
> * Separated flushing functionality
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 09:32 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2013/1/31 18:38, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 17:44 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> On 01/31/2013 04:48 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>&g
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 17:44 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 01/31/2013 04:48 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >
> > 1. IIUC, there is a button on machine which supports hot-r
at's the status of memory hotplug? Apart from can't remove kernel
memory, other things are fully implementation?
> On 01/31/2013 02:19 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:31 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:10 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 02:19 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:31 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> Please see below. :)
> >>
> >> On
Hi Tang,
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 11:31 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Please see below. :)
>
> On 01/31/2013 09:22 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I still confuse. :(
> > update node_states[N_NORMAL_MEMORY] to node_states[N_MEMORY] or
> >
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 18:15 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Please see below. :)
>
> On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Here is the physical me
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 13:55 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/30/2013 11:27 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:16 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> On 01/29/2013 09:04 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>> Hi Tang,
> >>> On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:3
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:16 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 09:04 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> From: Wen Congyang
> >>
> >> When memory is removed, the corresponding pagetables sho
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 08:52 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
>
> Hi Simon,
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 09:53 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2013/1/29 21:02, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > Hi Tang,
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> From: Wen Congyang
> >>
> >> When memory is removed, the corresponding paget
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> From: Wen Congyang
>
> When memory is removed, the corresponding pagetables should alse be removed.
> This patch introduces some common APIs to support vmemmap pagetable and x86_64
> architecture pagetable removing.
Why don't need to
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> From: Wen Congyang
>
> When memory is removed, the corresponding pagetables should alse be removed.
> This patch introduces some common APIs to support vmemmap pagetable and x86_64
> architecture pagetable removing.
>
When page tabl
Hi Tang,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Here is the physical memory hot-remove patch-set based on 3.8rc-2.
Some questions ask you, not has relationship with this patchset, but is
memory hotplug stuff.
1. In function node_states_check_changes_online:
comments:
* If we don'
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:01 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Switching merge_across_nodes after running KSM is liable to oops on stale
> nodes still left over from the previous stable tree. It's not something
> that people will often want to do, but it would be lame to demand a reboot
> when they're t
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:05 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> The new KSM NUMA merge_across_nodes knob introduces a problem, when it's
> set to non-default 0: if a KSM page is migrated to a different NUMA node,
> how do we migrate its stable node to the right tree? And what if that
> collides with an e
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:01 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Switching merge_across_nodes after running KSM is liable to oops on stale
> nodes still left over from the previous stable tree. It's not something
Since this patch solve the problem, so the description of
merge_across_nodes(Value can be ch
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 15:05 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:01 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Switching merge_across_nodes after running KSM is liable to oops on stale
> > > nodes still left over fr
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 15:12 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:03 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > + while (!get_page_unless_zero(page)) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Another check for pag
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 14:08 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:00 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > In some places where get_ksm_page() is used, we need the page to be
> > > locked.
> > >
> >
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:05 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> The new KSM NUMA merge_across_nodes knob introduces a problem, when it's
> set to non-default 0: if a KSM page is migrated to a different NUMA node,
> how do we migrate its stable node to the right tree? And what if that
> collides with an e
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:10 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Complaints are rare, but lockdep still does not understand the way
> ksm_memory_callback(MEM_GOING_OFFLINE) takes ksm_thread_mutex, and
> holds it until the ksm_memory_callback(MEM_OFFLINE): that appears
> to be a problem because notifier cal
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:03 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> KSM page migration is already supported in the case of memory hotremove,
> which takes the ksm_thread_mutex across all its migrations to keep life
> simple.
>
> But the new KSM NUMA merge_across_nodes knob introduces a problem, when
> it's s
Hi Hugh,
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:01 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Switching merge_across_nodes after running KSM is liable to oops on stale
> nodes still left over from the previous stable tree. It's not something
> that people will often want to do, but it would be lame to demand a reboot
> when
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 18:54 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 17:54 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > From: Petr Holasek
> > > @@ -1122,6 +1166,18 @@ struct rmap_item *unstable_tree_search_i
> >
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:00 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> In some places where get_ksm_page() is used, we need the page to be locked.
>
> When KSM migration is fully enabled, we shall want that to make sure that
> the page just acquired cannot be migrated beneath us (raised page count is
> only eff
Hi Hugh,
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:00 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> In some places where get_ksm_page() is used, we need the page to be locked.
>
In function get_ksm_page, why check page->mapping =>
get_page_unless_zero => check page->mapping instead of
get_page_unless_zero => check page->mapping,
Hi Hugh,
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 17:54 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> From: Petr Holasek
>
> Introduces new sysfs boolean knob /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/merge_across_nodes
> which control merging pages across different numa nodes.
> When it is set to zero only pages from the same node are merged,
> otherwis
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 09:36 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 08:35 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 21:17 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> On 01/23/2013 08:29 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>> Hi Tang,
> >>>
> >>> I remember yo
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 21:17 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 08:29 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > Hi Tang,
> >
> > I remember your big physical memory hot-remove patchset has already
> > merged by Andrew, but where I can find it? Could you give me git tree
> >
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 19:42 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Here are some bug fix patches for physical memory hot-remove. All these
> patches are based on the latest -mm tree.
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git akpm
>
> And patch1 and patch3 are very important.
> patch1:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 00:29 -0800, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> This commit implements David Rientjes' idea of mempressure cgroup.
>
> The main characteristics are the same to what I've tried to add to vmevent
> API; internally, it uses Mel Gorman's idea of scanned/reclaimed ratio for
> pressure index
pages(zonelist, order, gfp_mask,
> nodemask, sync_migration,
> - contended_compaction, &page);
> + contended_compaction);
> current->flags &am
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 12:25 +0100, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> On 11.01.2013 02:25, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 22:41 +0100, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> >> From: Zlatko Calusic
> >>
> >> Currently we take a short nap (HZ/10) and wait for congestion
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 00:01 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:46:15 +1100 paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
>
> > > ... I don't believe 64GB of RAM has _ever_ been booted on a 32-bit
> > > kernel without either violating the ABI (3GB/1GB split) or doing
> > > something that never
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 18:49 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
>
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:30:58PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Merged patch is obviously broken: huge_pmd_set_accessed() can be called
> > only if the pmd is under splitting.
>
> Of course I assume you meant "onl
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 22:41 +0100, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> From: Zlatko Calusic
>
> Currently we take a short nap (HZ/10) and wait for congestion to clear
> before taking another pass with lower priority in balance_pgdat(). But
> we do that only for the highest zone that we encounter is unbalance
Hi Shaohua,
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 16:12 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
Who sets this flag to pte? mmu? tlb?
> we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
> is in tlb and pte access bit i
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 13:24 +0100, Petr Holasek wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 02:32 +0100, Petr Holasek wrote:
> > >
> > > v7: - added sysfs ABI documentation for KSM
> >
> > Hi Pet
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 08:48 +, Liu Hui-R64343 wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Wanpeng Li [mailto:liw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> >Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 4:46 PM
> >To: Liu Hui-R64343
> >Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; mgor...@suse.de; akpm@linux-
> >foundation.org; r...@red
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 17:32 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Despite the reason for these commits, NUMA balancing is not the direct
> > source of the problem. split_huge_page() expected the anon_vma lock to be
> > exclusive to serialise the wh
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 14:08 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Zhouping, please test this patch.
>
> Andrea and Hugh, any comments on whether this could be improved?
>
> ---8<---
> mm: thp: Acquire the anon_vma rwsem for lock during split
>
> Zhouping Liu reported the following against 3.8-rc1 when runn
On Tue, 2012-12-25 at 02:22 +, Eric Wong wrote:
Please add changelog.
> Using fadvise with POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED can be very slow and cause
> user-visible latency. This hurts interactivity and encourages
> userspace to resort to background threads for readahead (or avoid
> POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 15:38 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:26:43PM -0600, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 11:26 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Namjae,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 11:26 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Hi Namjae,
> > > >
> > > > Why use bdi_stat_error here? What's the meaning of its comment "maximal
> > > > error of a stat counter"?
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > As you know bdi stats (BDI_RECLAIMABLE, BDI_WRITEBACK …) are kept in
> > >
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:23 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Lee Schermerhorn
>
> NOTE: Once again there is a lot of patch stealing and the end result
> is sufficiently different that I had to drop the signed-offs.
> Will re-add if the original authors are ok with that.
>
> This patc
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 16:41 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> 2013/1/4, Simon Jeons :
> > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 13:35 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> >> 2013/1/2, Jan Kara :
> >> > On Tue 01-01-13 08:51:04, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:3
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 15:03 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:10 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > As you can see, remove_rmap_item_from_tree uses it to decide whether
> > > or not it sh
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:23 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>
> NOTE: This patch is based on "sched, numa, mm: Add fault driven
> placement and migration policy" but as it throws away all the policy
> to just leave a basic foundation I had to drop the signed-offs-by.
>
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:23 +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> It is tricky to quantify the basic cost of automatic NUMA placement in a
> meaningful manner. This patch adds some vmstats that can be used as part
> of a basic costing model.
Hi Gorman,
>
> u= basic unit = sizeof(void *)
> Ca = cost
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 16:50 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 19:01 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> &
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 13:35 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> 2013/1/2, Jan Kara :
> > On Tue 01-01-13 08:51:04, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:30:54PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> >On Sun 30-12-12 14:59:50, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> >> >> From: Namjae Jeon
> >> >>
> >> >> Consider Process
On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 19:01 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > One question.
> >
> > I found that mainly callsite of expand_stack() is #PF, but it holds
> > mmap_sem each time before call expan
On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:10 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >
> > Hi Petr and Hugh,
> >
> > One offline question, thanks for your clarify.
>
> Perhaps not as offline as you intended :)
Hi Hugh,
Thanks for your detail ex
On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 02:32 +0100, Petr Holasek wrote:
> Introduces new sysfs boolean knob /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/merge_across_nodes
> which control merging pages across different numa nodes.
> When it is set to zero only pages from the same node are merged,
> otherwise pages from all nodes can be merg
On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 02:32 +0100, Petr Holasek wrote:
> Introduces new sysfs boolean knob /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/merge_across_nodes
> which control merging pages across different numa nodes.
> When it is set to zero only pages from the same node are merged,
> otherwise pages from all nodes can be merg
On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 02:15 +, Eric Wong wrote:
> xtu4 wrote:
> > resend it, due to format error
> >
> > Subject: [PATCH] when system in low memory scenario, imaging there is a mp3
> > play, ora video play, we need to read mp3 or video file
> > from memory to page cache,but when system lack
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 16:54 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> This is a serious cause of mmap_sem contention. MAP_POPULATE
> and MCL_FUTURE, in particular, are disastrous in multithreaded programs.
>
> This is not a complete solution due to reader/writer fairness.
>
Hi Andy, could you explain wha
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 06:48 -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> expand_stack() runs with a shared mmap_sem lock. Because of this, there
> could be multiple concurrent stack expansions in the same mm, which may
> cause problems in the vma gap update code.
>
> I propose to solve this by taking the mm-
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 13:12 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When ex-KSM pages are faulted from swap cache, the fault handler is
> not capable of re-establishing anon_vma-spanning KSM pages. In this
> case, a copy of the page is created instead, just like during a COW
> break.
>
> These freshly ma
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 16:54 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 16-12-12 09:21:54, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On 12/13/2012 10:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >On Wed 12-12-12 17:28:44, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > >>On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:53:36PM -0500, Rik van Riel wro
On 12/13/2012 10:55 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 12-12-12 17:28:44, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:53:36PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/12/2012 04:43 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
dc0422c "mm: vmscan: only evict file pages when we have plenty" makes
a point of not going f
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 16:43 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
> preference anymore. Just swap.
>
Confuse! If it's final scan and still swap space available, why nr[lr
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 16:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 04:43 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > dc0422c "mm: vmscan: only evict file pages when we have plenty" makes
> > a point of not going for anonymous memory while there is still enough
> > inactive cache around.
> >
> > The check wa
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 16:43 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> dc0422c "mm: vmscan: only evict file pages when we have plenty" makes
Can't find dc0422c.
> a point of not going for anonymous memory while there is still enough
> inactive cache around.
>
> The check was added only for global reclaim,
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 12:23 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-12-12 18:44:13, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> > On 2012/12/12 18:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed 12-12-12 16:25:59, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> > >> Build kernel with CONFIG_HUGETLBFS=y,CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE=y
> > >> and CONFIG_CGROUP_HUGETLB=
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 09:48 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 08:28 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 18:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> On 12/12/2012 05:29 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
have
ZONE_MOVABLE.
>
> On 12/12/2012 09:33 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >> @@ -4839,9 +4839,17 @@ static void __init
> >> find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes(void)
> >>required_kernelcore = max(required_kernelcore, corepages);
> >>}
> >>
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 18:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 12/12/2012 05:29 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your clarify.
> >
> > Enable PAE on x86 32bit kernel, 8G memory, movablecore=6.5G
>
> Could you please provide more info ?
&g
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 17:09 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 08:49 AM, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > This patch introduces a new array zone_movable_limit[] to store the
> > ZONE_MOVABLE limit from movablecore_map boot option for all nodes.
> > The function sanitize_zone_movable_limit() wi
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 09:29 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:23:27PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:55:15AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > We had a user report the soft lockup detector kicked after 22
> > > seconds of no progress, with this trace..
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 09:57 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2012/12/11 21:20, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 20:41 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> >> On 2012/12/11 20:24, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:07 +0800, Jianguo
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 12:56 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> If kernelcore or movablecore is specified at the same time
> with movablecore_map, movablecore_map will have higher
> priority to be satisfied.
> This patch will make find_zone_movable_pfns_for_nodes()
> calculate zone_movable_pfn[] with the lim
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 20:41 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2012/12/11 20:24, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:07 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> >> On 2012/12/11 10:33, Tang Chen wrote:
> >>
> >>> This patch introduces a new array zone_movab
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:07 +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2012/12/11 10:33, Tang Chen wrote:
>
> > This patch introduces a new array zone_movable_limit[] to store the
> > ZONE_MOVABLE limit from movablecore_map boot option for all nodes.
> > The function sanitize_zone_movable_limit() will find out
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 10:33 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> [What we are doing]
> This patchset provide a boot option for user to specify ZONE_MOVABLE memory
> map for each node in the system.
>
> movablecore_map=nn[KMG]@ss[KMG]
>
> This option make sure memory range from ss to ss+nn is movable memory.
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:32 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 11:07 AM, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> > On 2012/12/11 10:33, Tang Chen wrote:
> >
> >> This patch introduces a new array zone_movable_limit[] to store the
> >> ZONE_MOVABLE limit from movablecore_map boot option for all nodes.
> >> The fun
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 04:19 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 09:13:11PM -0600, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 04:01 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > Oh, it will be putback to lru list during migration. So does your "some
> > > >
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 04:01 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Oh, it will be putback to lru list during migration. So does your "some
> > time" mean before call check_new_page?
>
> Yes until the next check_new_page() whenever that is. If the migration
> works it will be earlier, otherwise later.
But I
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 03:03 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > IIUC, soft offlining will isolate and migrate hwpoisoned page, and this
> > page will not be accessed by memory management subsystem until unpoison,
> > correct?
>
> No, soft offlining can still allow accesses for some time. It'll never kill
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 16:38 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It is another topic, I mean since the page is poisoned, so why not isolate
> > it
> > from page buddy alocator in soft_offline_page() rather than in
> > check_new_page().
> > I find soft_offline_page() only migrate the page and mark HWPoiso
Cc other guys.
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 20:40 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2012/12/10 19:56, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 19:16 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >> On 2012/12/10 18:47, Simon Jeons wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 17:06 +0
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 19:16 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2012/12/10 18:47, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 17:06 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >> On 2012/12/10 16:33, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:11:02PM -0800, Andr
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 16:47 -0500, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Memory error handling on hugepages can break a RSS counter, which emits
> a message like "Bad rss-counter state mm:88040abecac0 idx:1 val:-1".
> This is because PageAnon returns true for hugepage (this behavior is
Could you explain wh
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 17:06 +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> On 2012/12/10 16:33, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:11:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:48:45 +0800
> >> Xishi Qiu wrote:
> >>
> >>> On x86 platform, if we use "/sys/devices/system/memory/soft_off
101 - 189 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
