search for: unmoveable

@Andrew, @Mst, I suggest the whole series (including the virtio-mem change) goes via the -mm tree. Currently, virtio-mem does not really support ZONE_MOVABLE. While it allows to online fully plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE, it does not allow to online partially-plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE and will never consider such memory blocks when unplugging memory. This might be surprising

@Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there are no more comments? Patch #1-#4 have RB's, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained by me, patch #6 is just a doc update. --- Currently, virtio-mem does not really support ZONE_MOVABLE. While it allows to online fully plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE, it does not allow to online partially-plugged memory blocks to

@Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there are no more comments? Patch #1-#4 have RB's, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained by me, patch #6 is just a doc update. --- Currently, virtio-mem does not really support ZONE_MOVABLE. While it allows to online fully plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE, it does not allow to online partially-plugged memory blocks to

For 5.10. Patch #1-#4,#6 have RBs or ACKs, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained by me. This should go via the -mm tree. --- When introducing virtio-mem, the semantics of ZONE_MOVABLE were rather unclear, which is why we special-cased ZONE_MOVABLE such that partially plugged blocks would never end up in ZONE_MOVABLE. Now that the semantics are much clearer (and are documented in patch #6),

For 5.10. Patch #1-#4,#6 have RBs or ACKs, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained by me. This should go via the -mm tree. --- When introducing virtio-mem, the semantics of ZONE_MOVABLE were rather unclear, which is why we special-cased ZONE_MOVABLE such that partially plugged blocks would never end up in ZONE_MOVABLE. Now that the semantics are much clearer (and are documented in patch #6),

@Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there are no more comments? Patch #1-#4,#6 have RBss or ACKs, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained by me (and MST is aware). --- When introducing virtio-mem, the semantics of ZONE_MOVABLE were rather unclear, which is why we special-cased ZONE_MOVABLE such that partially plugged blocks would never end up in ZONE_MOVABLE. Now

@Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there are no more comments? Patch #1-#4,#6 have RBss or ACKs, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained by me (and MST is aware). --- When introducing virtio-mem, the semantics of ZONE_MOVABLE were rather unclear, which is why we special-cased ZONE_MOVABLE such that partially plugged blocks would never end up in ZONE_MOVABLE. Now

Currently, virtio-mem does not really support ZONE_MOVABLE. While it allows to online fully plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE, it does not allow to online partially-plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE and will never consider such memory blocks when unplugging memory. This might be surprising for users (especially, if onlining suddenly fails). Let's support partially plugged memory

Currently, virtio-mem does not really support ZONE_MOVABLE. While it allows to online fully plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE, it does not allow to online partially-plugged memory blocks to ZONE_MOVABLE and will never consider such memory blocks when unplugging memory. This might be surprising for users (especially, if onlining suddenly fails). Let's support partially plugged memory

virtio-mem wants to allow to offline memory blocks of which some parts were unplugged (allocated via alloc_contig_range()), especially, to later offline and remove completely unplugged memory blocks. The important part is that PageOffline() has to remain set until the section is offline, so these pages will never get accessed (e.g., when dumping). The pages should not be handed back to the buddy

virtio-mem wants to allow to offline memory blocks of which some parts were unplugged (allocated via alloc_contig_range()), especially, to later offline and remove completely unplugged memory blocks. The important part is that PageOffline() has to remain set until the section is offline, so these pages will never get accessed (e.g., when dumping). The pages should not be handed back to the buddy

virtio-mem wants to allow to offline memory blocks of which some parts were unplugged (allocated via alloc_contig_range()), especially, to later offline and remove completely unplugged memory blocks. The important part is that PageOffline() has to remain set until the section is offline, so these pages will never get accessed (e.g., when dumping). The pages should not be handed back to the buddy

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 06:14:17PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > virtio-mem wants to allow to offline memory blocks of which some parts > were unplugged (allocated via alloc_contig_range()), especially, to later > offline and remove completely unplugged memory blocks. The important part > is that PageOffline() has to remain set until the section is offline, so > these pages will

I have set up an area of shared folders with Dovecot 1.2 that is accessed by several people (by way of one account, and everyone who logs in sees these same folders), and the only problem with this setup is that occasionally somebody moves one of the folders underneath another folder or somewhere else in the folder structure, and this sometimes disrupts some automatic procmail filters and the

The "Sortable lists demo" is almost perfect for a project, but once you drag all the items from the first list to the second, you cannot drag back to the first. I need to be able to have several <ul>s that can be dragged back and forth between, even when one is emptied. Possible solutions? 1) create a <li> that is styled as a header, and is unmovable 2) modify the

On Mon 02-03-20 14:49:36, David Hildenbrand wrote: > virtio-mem wants to allow to offline memory blocks of which some parts > were unplugged (allocated via alloc_contig_range()), especially, to later > offline and remove completely unplugged memory blocks. The important part > is that PageOffline() has to remain set until the section is offline, so > these pages will never get

On 02.03.20 18:40, Alexander Duyck wrote: > Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck at linux.intel.com> Thanks a lot Alex! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb

On 29.07.20 15:24, Baoquan He wrote: > On 06/30/20 at 04:26pm, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> Inside has_unmovable_pages(), we have a comment describing how unmovable >> data could end up in ZONE_MOVABLE - via "movable_core". Also, besides > ~~~ 'movablecore' >> checking if the first page in the pageblock is reserved, we don't >> perform any

Let's clean it up a bit, simplifying error handling and getting rid of the label. Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe at redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux at gmail.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko at suse.com> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz at

On 7/30/20 11:34 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Let's clean it up a bit, simplifying error handling and getting rid of > the label. Nit: the label was already removed by patch 1/6? > Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe at redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux at gmail.com> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> > Cc: Michal Hocko