search for: v35

On 07/11/2018 01:33 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > NAK. > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:56 AM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> 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 Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > NAK. > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:56 AM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > > > + > > + buf_page = list_first_entry_or_null(pages, struct page, lru); > > + if (!buf_page) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + buf = (__le64 *)page_address(buf_page);

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 time), and mark > them free for ballooning that way. And if you still feel you have tons > of free memory, just continue removing

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 > > > form the page list. That would be an _incremental_ interface. You can > > > remove MAX_ORDER-1 pages one by one (or a hundred at

On 07/12/2018 12:23 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:21 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org> 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 only new interface people might want is one

On 07/12/2018 10:30 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> 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? Maybe you don't want to remove too much

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 <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: >>>> Would it be better to remove __GFP_THISNODE? We actually want to get all >>>> the guest free pages (from all the nodes).

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> 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? Maybe you don't want to remove too much memory from one node? I think it's one of those "play

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:17 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> 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? Maybe you don't want to remove too much memory from one node? I think it's one of those "play

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:21 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org> 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 only new interface people might want is one that just tells how many of those MAX_ORDER-1 pages there are.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:21 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org> 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 only new interface people might want is one that just tells how many of those MAX_ORDER-1 pages there are.

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. The obtained free page blocks are hints about free pages, because there is no guarantee that they are still on the free page list after the function returns. One use example of this patch is to accelerate live migration by skipping the

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > We only get addresses of the "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks into the array. The > max size of the array that could be allocated by kmalloc is > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE (i.e. 4MB on x86). With that max array, we could load > "4MB / sizeof(u64)" addresses of "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks, that is,

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM Wei Wang <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > We only get addresses of the "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks into the array. The > max size of the array that could be allocated by kmalloc is > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE (i.e. 4MB on x86). With that max array, we could load > "4MB / sizeof(u64)" addresses of "MAX_ORDER-1" blocks, that is,

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 time), and mark >> them free for ballooning that way. And if you

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 time), and mark >> them free for ballooning that way. And if you

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 form the page list. That would be an _incremental_

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 <wei.w.wang at intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Would it be better to remove __GFP_THISNODE? We actually want to get

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 <wei.w.wang at intel.com> 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

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 <wei.w.wang at intel.com> 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