On 07/12/2018 07:49 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 12-07-18 19:34:16, Wei Wang wrote:
On 07/12/2018 04:13 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 12-07-18 10:52:08, Wei Wang wrote:
On 07/12/2018 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 PM Wei Wang wrote:
Would it be better to
On 07/12/2018 04:13 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 12-07-18 10:52:08, Wei Wang wrote:
On 07/12/2018 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 PM Wei Wang wrote:
Would it be better to remove __GFP_THISNODE? We actually want to get all
the guest free pages (from all the
On 07/12/2018 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 PM Wei Wang wrote:
Would it be better to remove __GFP_THISNODE? We actually want to get all
the guest free pages (from all the nodes).
Maybe. Or maybe it would be better to have the memory balloon logic be
per-node?
On 07/12/2018 12:23 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:21 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
We already have an interface for that. alloc_pages(GFP_NOWAIT, MAX_ORDER -1).
So why do we need any array based interface?
That was actually my original argument in the original thread - that
the
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:09:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> But let me note that I am not really convinced how this (or previous)
> approach will really work in most workloads. We tend to cache heavily so
> there is rarely any memory free.
It might be that it's worth flushing the cache when
On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 7:10 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 11-07-18 18:52:45, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 07/11/2018 05:21 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 10-07-18 18:44:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > That was what I tried to encourage with actually removing the
> > > > pages
On 07/11/2018 05:21 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 10-07-18 18:44:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
That was what I tried to encourage with actually removing the pages
form the page list. That would be an _incremental_ interface. You can
remove MAX_ORDER-1 pages one by one (or a hundred at a
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 07:00:37AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > NAK.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:56 AM Wei Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > +
> > > + buf_page = list_first_entry_or_null(pages, struct page, lru);
> > > +
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> NAK.
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:56 AM Wei Wang wrote:
> >
> > +
> > + buf_page = list_first_entry_or_null(pages, struct page, lru);
> > + if (!buf_page)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + buf = (__le64
On 07/11/2018 01:33 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
NAK.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:56 AM Wei Wang wrote:
+
+ buf_page = list_first_entry_or_null(pages, struct page, lru);
+ if (!buf_page)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ buf = (__le64 *)page_address(buf_page);
Stop this garbage.
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 5:31 PM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH v35 1/5] mm: support to get hints of free page blocks
>
> This patch adds support to get free page blocks from a free page list.
> The physical addresses of the blocks are stored to a list of buffers passed
> from the caller.
11 matches
Mail list logo
