On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 04:02:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:57:44 -0800 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>
> > So if I'm understanding this correctly, hugepages never have PG_lru set
> > and so you are overloading that bit on hugepages to indicate that the
> > page is present
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 03:57:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:32:08 + Naoya Horiguchi
> wrote:
>
> > Currently we are not safe from concurrent calls of isolate_huge_page(),
> > which can make the victim hugepage in invalid state and results in BUG_ON().
> >
> >
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:57:44 -0800 Andrew Morton
wrote:
> So if I'm understanding this correctly, hugepages never have PG_lru set
> and so you are overloading that bit on hugepages to indicate that the
> page is present on hstate->hugepage_activelist?
And maybe we don't need to overload PG_lru
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:32:08 + Naoya Horiguchi
wrote:
> Currently we are not safe from concurrent calls of isolate_huge_page(),
> which can make the victim hugepage in invalid state and results in BUG_ON().
>
> The root problem of this is that we don't have any information on struct page
>
t; hugepage")
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi
> Cc: [3.12+]
Sorry, my testing was not enough and I found a bug in soft offline code.
Here is the updated one.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
From e69950011360f624e08712de4d541c7d686d6296 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Naoya Ho
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 04:02:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:57:44 -0800 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
So if I'm understanding this correctly, hugepages never have PG_lru set
and so you are overloading that bit on hugepages to indicate that the
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:32:08 + Naoya Horiguchi n-horigu...@ah.jp.nec.com
wrote:
Currently we are not safe from concurrent calls of isolate_huge_page(),
which can make the victim hugepage in invalid state and results in BUG_ON().
The root problem of this is that we don't have any
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 03:57:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:32:08 + Naoya Horiguchi
n-horigu...@ah.jp.nec.com wrote:
Currently we are not safe from concurrent calls of isolate_huge_page(),
which can make the victim hugepage in invalid state and results in
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:57:44 -0800 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
So if I'm understanding this correctly, hugepages never have PG_lru set
and so you are overloading that bit on hugepages to indicate that the
page is present on hstate-hugepage_activelist?
And maybe we don't
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm, hugetlb: set PageLRU for in-use/active hugepages
Currently we are not safe from concurrent calls of isolate_huge_page(),
which can make the victim hugepage in invalid state and results in BUG_ON().
The root problem of this is that we don't have any information on struct page
(so
10 matches
Mail list logo