From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836346B0038 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 04:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id p65so2302219wma.1 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:21:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k12si843581edd.18.2017.11.23.01.21.50 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Nov 2017 01:21:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:21:49 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: hugetlb page migration vs. overcommit Message-ID: <20171123092149.tnfl2dcswg2iv3s3@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20171122152832.iayefrlxbugphorp@dhcp22.suse.cz> <91969714-5256-e96f-a48b-43af756a2686@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <91969714-5256-e96f-a48b-43af756a2686@oracle.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mike Kravetz Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Naoya Horiguchi , LKML On Wed 22-11-17 11:11:38, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 11/22/2017 07:28 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Why don't we simply migrate as long as we are able to allocate the > > target hugetlb page? I have a half baked patch to remove this > > restriction, would there be an opposition to do something like that? > > I would not be opposed and would help with this effort. My concern would > be any subtle hugetlb accounting issues once you start messing with > additional overcommit pages. Well my current (crude) patch checks for overcommit in the destructor and releases the page if we are over. That should deal with accounting AFAICS. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org