"Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
>> [patch 1/4]: OK. I guess. Was this worth consuming our last PF_ flag?
>
> That was done based on request from Andrea and it also helps in avoiding
> allocating pages from CMA region where we know we are anyway going to
> migrate them out.
Andrew Morton writes:
> [patch 1/4]: OK. I guess. Was this worth consuming our last PF_ flag?
That was done based on request from Andrea and it also helps in avoiding
allocating pages from CMA region where we know we are anyway going to
migrate them out. So yes, this helps.
> [patch 2/4]: un
[patch 1/4]: OK. I guess. Was this worth consuming our last PF_ flag?
[patch 2/4]: unreviewed
[patch 3/4]: unreviewed, mpe still unhappy, I expect?
[patch 4/4]: unreviewed
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:24:32 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
wrote:
> ppc64 use CMA area for the allocation of guest page table (hash page table).
> We won't
> be able to start guest if we fail to allocate hash page table. We have
> observed
> hash table allocation failure because we failed to migrat
ppc64 use CMA area for the allocation of guest page table (hash page table). We
won't
be able to start guest if we fail to allocate hash page table. We have observed
hash table allocation failure because we failed to migrate pages out of CMA
region
because they were pinned. This happen when we ar
5 matches
Mail list logo
