> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko
[...]
> + do {
> + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn;)
> + {
> + /* start memory hot removal */
Should we change thAT comment? I mean, this is not really the hot-
removal stage.
Maybe "start memory migration" suits better? o
On Tue 20-11-18 16:13:35, Oscar Salvador wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko
> [...]
> > + do {
> > + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn;)
> > + {
> > + /* start memory hot removal */
>
> Should we change thAT comment? I mean, this is not really the hot-
> rem
On 20.11.18 15:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 20-11-18 15:26:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>>> + do {
>>> + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn;)
>>> + {
>>
>> { on a new line looks weird.
>>
>>> + /* start memory hot removal */
>>> + ret = -
On Tue 20-11-18 15:26:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> > + do {
> > + for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn;)
> > + {
>
> { on a new line looks weird.
>
> > + /* start memory hot removal */
> > + ret = -EINTR;
>
> I think we can move that into th
On 20.11.18 14:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Memory migration might fail during offlining and we keep retrying in
> that case. This is currently obfuscate by goto retry loop. The code
> is hard to follow and as a result it is even suboptimal becase each
> retry round scans the
5 matches
Mail list logo
