On 4/15/19 3:13 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 4/15/19 3:06 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
This seems like an actively bad idea to me.
Why do we need an *active* note to say the node is contended? Why isn't
just getting a failure back from migrate_pages() enough? Have you
observed this in practice?
The f
On 4/15/19 3:06 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>
>> This seems like an actively bad idea to me.
>>
>> Why do we need an *active* note to say the node is contended? Why isn't
>> just getting a failure back from migrate_pages() enough? Have you
>> observed this in practice?
>
> The flag will be used to che
On 4/11/19 9:06 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 4/10/19 8:56 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
When demoting to PMEM node, the target node may have memory pressure,
then the memory pressure may cause migrate_pages() fail.
If the failure is caused by memory pressure (i.e. returning -ENOMEM),
tag the node with PG
On 4/10/19 8:56 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> When demoting to PMEM node, the target node may have memory pressure,
> then the memory pressure may cause migrate_pages() fail.
>
> If the failure is caused by memory pressure (i.e. returning -ENOMEM),
> tag the node with PGDAT_CONTENDED. The tag would be cl
When demoting to PMEM node, the target node may have memory pressure,
then the memory pressure may cause migrate_pages() fail.
If the failure is caused by memory pressure (i.e. returning -ENOMEM),
tag the node with PGDAT_CONTENDED. The tag would be cleared once the
target node is balanced again.
5 matches
Mail list logo
