From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753477AbdIDJIs (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2017 05:08:48 -0400 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:5531 "EHLO szxga05-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753323AbdIDJIq (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2017 05:08:46 -0400 Message-ID: <59AD174B.4020807@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 17:05:15 +0800 From: Xishi Qiu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michal Hocko CC: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Reza Arbab , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , Igor Mammedov , Vitaly Kuznetsov , , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memory_hotplug: remove timeout from __offline_memory References: <20170904082148.23131-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170904082148.23131-3-mhocko@kernel.org> <59AD15B6.7080304@huawei.com> <20170904090114.mrjxipvucieadxa6@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20170904090114.mrjxipvucieadxa6@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.25.179] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0203.59AD1750.00C2,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-11-16 11:51:01, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 1761ffefd837e757f5c08f6fd5997eba Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017/9/4 17:01, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 04-09-17 16:58:30, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> On 2017/9/4 16:21, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >>> From: Michal Hocko >>> >>> We have a hardcoded 120s timeout after which the memory offline fails >>> basically since the hot remove has been introduced. This is essentially >>> a policy implemented in the kernel. Moreover there is no way to adjust >>> the timeout and so we are sometimes facing memory offline failures if >>> the system is under a heavy memory pressure or very intensive CPU >>> workload on large machines. >>> >>> It is not very clear what purpose the timeout actually serves. The >>> offline operation is interruptible by a signal so if userspace wants >> >> Hi Michal, >> >> If the user know what he should do if migration for a long time, >> it is OK, but I don't think all the users know this operation >> (e.g. ctrl + c) and the affect. > > How is this operation any different from other potentially long > interruptible syscalls? > Hi Michal, I means the user should stop it by himself if migration always retry in endless. Thanks, Xishi Qiu