Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 07:12:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > ---8<--- > > mm, vmscan: prevent kswapd sleeping prematurely due to mismatched > > classzone_idx -fix > > > > The patch "mm, vmscan: prevent kswapd sleeping prematurely due to mismatched > > classzone_idx" has different initial

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 07:12:42PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > ---8<--- > > mm, vmscan: prevent kswapd sleeping prematurely due to mismatched > > classzone_idx -fix > > > > The patch "mm, vmscan: prevent kswapd sleeping prematurely due to mismatched > > classzone_idx" has different initial

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 06-04-17 17:55:20, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:21:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > This was my first time using your git branch instead of applying the > > > patches > > > from this thread to v4.11-rc5 myself. > > > > OK, so this looks like another thing to

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 06-04-17 17:55:20, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:21:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > This was my first time using your git branch instead of applying the > > > patches > > > from this thread to v4.11-rc5 myself. > > > > OK, so this looks like another thing to

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:21:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This was my first time using your git branch instead of applying the patches > > from this thread to v4.11-rc5 myself. > > OK, so this looks like another thing to resolve. I have seen this > warning as well but I didn't consider it

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:21:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This was my first time using your git branch instead of applying the patches > > from this thread to v4.11-rc5 myself. > > OK, so this looks like another thing to resolve. I have seen this > warning as well but I didn't consider it

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:21:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 06-04-17 10:46:53, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > > >>On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:21:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 06-04-17 10:46:53, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > > >>On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 06-04-17 10:46:53, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 06-04-17 10:46:53, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab >(thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab >(thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab > >(thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state finally. All I > >currently have is > >in

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 06-04-17 10:24:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab > >(thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state finally. All I > >currently have is > >in

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab (thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state finally. All I currently have is in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git tree

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:08:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab (thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state finally. All I currently have is in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git tree

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab (thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state finally. All I currently have is in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git tree attempts/rewrite-mem_hotplug-WIP branch. I will highly appreciate more

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

OK, so after recent change mostly driven by testing from Reza Arbab (thanks again) I believe I am getting to a working state finally. All I currently have is in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git tree attempts/rewrite-mem_hotplug-WIP branch. I will highly appreciate more

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 23:02:14, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > OK, I was staring into the code and I guess I finally understand what is > going on here. Looking at arch_add_memory->...->register_mem_sect_under_node > was just misleading. I am still not 100% sure why but we try to do the > same thing later

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 23:02:14, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > OK, I was staring into the code and I guess I finally understand what is > going on here. Looking at arch_add_memory->...->register_mem_sect_under_node > was just misleading. I am still not 100% sure why but we try to do the > same thing later

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 18:34:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-04-17 10:48:52, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:42:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > > >>Okay, getting further. With this I can again repeatedly add and remove, > > >>but now

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 18:34:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-04-17 10:48:52, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:42:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > > >>Okay, getting further. With this I can again repeatedly add and remove, > > >>but now

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 20:15:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-04-17 12:32:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in > > >the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 20:15:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-04-17 12:32:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in > > >the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:34:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: This is really interesting. Because add_memory_resource does the following /* call arch's memory hotadd */ ret = arch_add_memory(nid, start, size); if (ret < 0) goto error; /* we

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:34:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: This is really interesting. Because add_memory_resource does the following /* call arch's memory hotadd */ ret = arch_add_memory(nid, start, size); if (ret < 0) goto error; /* we

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 20:15:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-04-17 12:32:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in > > >the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 20:15:02, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-04-17 12:32:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in > > >the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 12:32:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in > >the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and sprinkle printks down > >the remove_memory path to see where

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 12:32:49, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in > >the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and sprinkle printks down > >the remove_memory path to see where

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and sprinkle printks down the remove_memory path to see where this all go south. I believe that there is

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and sprinkle printks down the remove_memory path to see where this all go south. I believe that there is

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 10:48:52, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:42:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>Okay, getting further. With this I can again repeatedly add and remove, > >>but now I'm seeing a weird variation of that earlier issue: >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 10:48:52, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:42:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>Okay, getting further. With this I can again repeatedly add and remove, > >>but now I'm seeing a weird variation of that earlier issue: >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:42:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: Okay, getting further. With this I can again repeatedly add and remove, but now I'm seeing a weird variation of that earlier issue: 1. add_memory(), online_movable

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:42:39AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: Okay, getting further. With this I can again repeatedly add and remove, but now I'm seeing a weird variation of that earlier issue: 1. add_memory(), online_movable

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 09:53:05, Reza Arbab wrote: [...] > I hope this made sense. :/ yes it certainly helped me to make some picture of your setup. I will keep thinking about that. But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 09:53:05, Reza Arbab wrote: [...] > I hope this made sense. :/ yes it certainly helped me to make some picture of your setup. I will keep thinking about that. But one thing that is really bugging me is how could you see low pfns in the previous oops. Please drop the last patch and

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:52:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: My code doesn't do that though. So I guess I have to sanitize. Does this help? Please drop the "mm, memory_hotplug: get rid of zone/node shrinking" patch. --- diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c index

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:52:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: My code doesn't do that though. So I guess I have to sanitize. Does this help? Please drop the "mm, memory_hotplug: get rid of zone/node shrinking" patch. --- diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c index

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:24:27AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 05-04-17 08:42:39, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > It's new. Without this patchset, I can repeatedly > add_memory()->online_movable->offline->remove_memory() all of a node's > memory. This is

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:24:27AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Wed 05-04-17 08:42:39, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > It's new. Without this patchset, I can repeatedly > add_memory()->online_movable->offline->remove_memory() all of a node's > memory. This is

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>I think I found another edge case. You > >>get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: > >> > >>__nr_to_section > >>__pfn_to_section

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>I think I found another edge case. You > >>get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: > >> > >>__nr_to_section > >>__pfn_to_section

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 08:42:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > > >>I think I found another edge case. You > > >>get an oops when removing all of a

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Wed 05-04-17 08:42:39, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > > >>I think I found another edge case. You > > >>get an oops when removing all of a

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>I think I found another edge case. You > >>get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: > >> > >>__nr_to_section > >>__pfn_to_section

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>I think I found another edge case. You > >>get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: > >> > >>__nr_to_section > >>__pfn_to_section

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 21:41:22, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >Thanks for your testing! This is highly appreciated. > > >Can I assume your Tested-by? > > > > Of course! Not quite done, though. >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 21:41:22, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >Thanks for your testing! This is highly appreciated. > > >Can I assume your Tested-by? > > > > Of course! Not quite done, though. >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: I think I found another edge case. You get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: __nr_to_section __pfn_to_section find_biggest_section_pfn shrink_pgdat_span __remove_zone

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: I think I found another edge case. You get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: __nr_to_section __pfn_to_section find_biggest_section_pfn shrink_pgdat_span __remove_zone

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >Thanks for your testing! This is highly appreciated. > >Can I assume your Tested-by? > > Of course! Not quite done, though. Ohh, I didn't mean to rush you to that! > I think I found

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >Thanks for your testing! This is highly appreciated. > >Can I assume your Tested-by? > > Of course! Not quite done, though. Ohh, I didn't mean to rush you to that! > I think I found

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: Thanks for your testing! This is highly appreciated. Can I assume your Tested-by? Of course! Not quite done, though. I think I found another edge case. You get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: __nr_to_section

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: Thanks for your testing! This is highly appreciated. Can I assume your Tested-by? Of course! Not quite done, though. I think I found another edge case. You get an oops when removing all of a node's memory: __nr_to_section

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 11:02:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c > >index 5548f9686016..ee080a35e869 100644 > >--- a/drivers/base/node.c > >+++ b/drivers/base/node.c > >@@ -368,8 +368,6 @@ int

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 11:02:39, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c > >index 5548f9686016..ee080a35e869 100644 > >--- a/drivers/base/node.c > >+++ b/drivers/base/node.c > >@@ -368,8 +368,6 @@ int

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c index 5548f9686016..ee080a35e869 100644 --- a/drivers/base/node.c +++ b/drivers/base/node.c @@ -368,8 +368,6 @@ int unregister_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid)

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c index 5548f9686016..ee080a35e869 100644 --- a/drivers/base/node.c +++ b/drivers/base/node.c @@ -368,8 +368,6 @@ int unregister_cpu_under_node(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int nid)

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, so I've been thinkin about that and I believe that page_initialized check in get_nid_for_pfn is just bogus. There is nothing to rely on the page::lru to be already initialized. So I will go with the following as a separate

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: OK, so I've been thinkin about that and I believe that page_initialized check in get_nid_for_pfn is just bogus. There is nothing to rely on the page::lru to be already initialized. So I will go with the following as a separate

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 09:34:12, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 04-04-17 09:23:29, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [Let's add Gary who as introduced this code c04fc586c1a48] > > OK, so Gary's email doesn't exist anymore. Does anybody can comment on > this? I suspect this code is just-in-case... Mel? > > > On

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 09:34:12, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 04-04-17 09:23:29, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [Let's add Gary who as introduced this code c04fc586c1a48] > > OK, so Gary's email doesn't exist anymore. Does anybody can comment on > this? I suspect this code is just-in-case... Mel? > > > On

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 09:23:29, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Let's add Gary who as introduced this code c04fc586c1a48] OK, so Gary's email doesn't exist anymore. Does anybody can comment on this? I suspect this code is just-in-case... Mel? > On Mon 03-04-17 15:42:13, Reza Arbab wrote: [...] > > Almost

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue 04-04-17 09:23:29, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Let's add Gary who as introduced this code c04fc586c1a48] OK, so Gary's email doesn't exist anymore. Does anybody can comment on this? I suspect this code is just-in-case... Mel? > On Mon 03-04-17 15:42:13, Reza Arbab wrote: [...] > > Almost

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

[Let's add Gary who as introduced this code c04fc586c1a48] On Mon 03-04-17 15:42:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:23:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Mon 03-04-17 14:58:30, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>However, I am seeing a regression. When adding memory to a memoryless > >>node,

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

[Let's add Gary who as introduced this code c04fc586c1a48] On Mon 03-04-17 15:42:13, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:23:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Mon 03-04-17 14:58:30, Reza Arbab wrote: > >>However, I am seeing a regression. When adding memory to a memoryless > >>node,

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:23:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 03-04-17 14:58:30, Reza Arbab wrote: However, I am seeing a regression. When adding memory to a memoryless node, it shows up in node 0 instead. I'm digging to see if I can help narrow down where things go wrong. OK, I guess

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 10:23:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 03-04-17 14:58:30, Reza Arbab wrote: However, I am seeing a regression. When adding memory to a memoryless node, it shows up in node 0 instead. I'm digging to see if I can help narrow down where things go wrong. OK, I guess

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon 03-04-17 14:58:30, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:55:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys > >who have shaped this code last few years. Also Igor and Vitaly seem to be > >using memory hotplug in

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon 03-04-17 14:58:30, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:55:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys > >who have shaped this code last few years. Also Igor and Vitaly seem to be > >using memory hotplug in

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:55:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys who have shaped this code last few years. Also Igor and Vitaly seem to be using memory hotplug in virtualized environments. I do not expect they would see a

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:55:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys who have shaped this code last few years. Also Igor and Vitaly seem to be using memory hotplug in virtualized environments. I do not expect they would see a

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:55:46 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 30-03-17 13:54:48, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Any thoughts, complains, suggestions? > > Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys > who have shaped this code last few years.

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:55:46 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 30-03-17 13:54:48, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > Any thoughts, complains, suggestions? > > Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys > who have shaped this code last few years. Also Igor and Vitaly

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 30-03-17 13:54:48, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > Any thoughts, complains, suggestions? Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys who have shaped this code last few years. Also Igor and Vitaly seem to be using memory hotplug in virtualized environments. I do not

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu 30-03-17 13:54:48, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > Any thoughts, complains, suggestions? Anyting? I would really appreciate a feedback from IBM and Futjitsu guys who have shaped this code last few years. Also Igor and Vitaly seem to be using memory hotplug in virtualized environments. I do not

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Fri 31-03-17 21:19:24, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Patch 5 is the core of the change. In order to make it easier to review > > I have tried it to be as minimalistic as possible and the large code > > removal is moved to patch 6. > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Fri 31-03-17 21:19:24, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Patch 5 is the core of the change. In order to make it easier to review > > I have tried it to be as minimalistic as possible and the large code > > removal is moved to patch 6. > >

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Patch 5 is the core of the change. In order to make it easier to review > I have tried it to be as minimalistic as possible and the large code > removal is moved to patch 6. > > I would appreciate if s390 folks could take a look at

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > Patch 5 is the core of the change. In order to make it easier to review > I have tried it to be as minimalistic as possible and the large code > removal is moved to patch 6. > > I would appreciate if s390 folks could take a look at

[PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

Hi, I have posted a crude RFC for this rework [1] and there didn't seem any objections so I have split up the patch into smaller chunks which will make the review easier hopefully. Motivation: Movable onlining is a real hack with many downsides - mainly reintroduction of lowmem/highmem issues we

[PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less

Hi, I have posted a crude RFC for this rework [1] and there didn't seem any objections so I have split up the patch into smaller chunks which will make the review easier hopefully. Motivation: Movable onlining is a real hack with many downsides - mainly reintroduction of lowmem/highmem issues we