Received: by 2002:a25:d7c1:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o184csp1720552ybg; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 01:03:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzC/0AwFyZx/iYNDEN1YUwz/iVe0iQDouEI0IzrNv61DL4DKq8bZYkuNZD7jppWCbus8F43 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c49:: with SMTP id t9mr12473580ejf.267.1571472225484; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 01:03:45 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1571472225; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=L17NVQu0cx4cp0RX6evGaIaVr5IMiOGf2sj02MRTQpUAS0ruuoF2u0mzgYKmeDPzCC mMBb+o9Ez/wRWBM8asytW/UlugfF1FxYIw9r9X8y+ZVkWpVwS3KeBziSMgyi7ygxPY35 zIjoNN4KzowaJhu0KXCA5sU87mPXThY4Z8hJ5MyWwyNdcl7Gc6lcuoAfR6N7+rlW6AzS o4fxZZv+/vn42vqPnNuiB9adhpW4wb5dEib9NxWAtIDfQo+m+yojRI+JEH1Lh1ECknV9 xexoXTbqUb8I5JhBSqFRlg+DQfflFkToH9JRy3ZCgA/wSF02X33BFmS32Cnp1AF/e/Al XXCA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=OzNbj1E7m0RkEIm5LF9klz+3df64ChbCQJWX/fluoYQ=; b=LYHhgZVc/J0HyrhfQjVmq/nmTzlfrBnXd8aovJR2GMk0nongCtX7xOodjhPxsoAEPQ 6O1ofhq9zTyPgYpDwCTjD3o5HiCi0Vik0Yo3Z+Rx/oz4y5+gvdm4IUjJuqXEg/5R48aL zwAGXdZ6ZoO8rj57FDxAf9yQ+9OJBhmlWPFj57CFApLYHykKpFhRWUmD6DFWUcBJGjrz koyYl0BF7qY74paFzo4qRKh/hTkF6Qgrx5tuDDP/vOTVij0e9XiEVXAEI+Gi8/IU4Ro8 WglBlQ8YXI4Sfwp+ZPPD/P8lMxKXWjWmwhSOWEQ0awTgGHwIS0wg52lGk4O72B89TjHu WQUQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ay2si5190772edb.343.2019.10.19.01.03.22; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 01:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391724AbfJRIzb (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:55:31 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39630 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731444AbfJRIza (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 04:55:30 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE5BB715; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:55:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:55:28 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Naoya Horiguchi , Qian Cai , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Mike Kravetz Subject: Re: memory offline infinite loop after soft offline Message-ID: <20191018085528.GG5017@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1570829564.5937.36.camel@lca.pw> <20191014083914.GA317@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191017093410.GA19973@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20191017100106.GF24485@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1571335633.5937.69.camel@lca.pw> <20191017182759.GN24485@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20191018021906.GA24978@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <33946728-bdeb-494a-5db8-e279acebca47@redhat.com> <20191018082459.GE5017@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 18-10-19 10:38:21, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 18.10.19 10:24, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 18-10-19 10:13:36, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > [...] > > > However, if the compound page spans multiple pageblocks > > > > Although hugetlb pages spanning pageblocks are possible this shouldn't > > matter in__test_page_isolated_in_pageblock because this function doesn't > > really operate on pageblocks as the name suggests. It is simply > > traversing all valid RAM ranges (see walk_system_ram_range). > > As long as the hugepages don't span memory blocks/sections, you are right. I > have no experience with gigantic pages in this regard. They can clearly span sections (1GB is larger than 128MB). Why do you think it matters actually? walk_system_ram_range walks RAM ranges and no allocation should span holes in RAM right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs