Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: fixup changers of per cpu pageset's ->high and->batch

From: Cody P Schafer
Date: Mon Apr 08 2013 - 17:17:57 EST

On 04/08/2013 12:08 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (4/8/13 1:16 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
>> On 04/07/2013 08:23 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> (4/5/13 4:33 PM), Cody P Schafer wrote:
>>>> In one case while modifying the ->high and ->batch fields of per cpu pagesets
>>>> we're unneededly using stop_machine() (patches 1 & 2), and in another we don't have any
>>>> syncronization at all (patch 3).
>>>> This patchset fixes both of them.
>>>> Note that it results in a change to the behavior of zone_pcp_update(), which is
>>>> used by memory_hotplug. I _think_ that I've diserned (and preserved) the
>>>> essential behavior (changing ->high and ->batch), and only eliminated unneeded
>>>> actions (draining the per cpu pages), but this may not be the case.
>>> at least, memory hotplug need to drain.
>> Could you explain why the drain is required here? From what I can tell,
>> after the stop_machine() completes, the per cpu page sets could be
>> repopulated at any point, making the combination of draining and
>> modifying ->batch & ->high uneeded.
> Then, memory hotplug again and again try to drain. Moreover hotplug prevent repopulation
> pcp never be page count == 0 and it prevent memory hot remove.

zone_pcp_update() is not part of the drain retry loop, in the offline
pages case, it is only called following success in "removal" (online
pages also calls zone_pcp_update(), I don't see how it could benifit in
any way from draining the per cpu pagesets).

So I still don't see where the need for draining pages combined with
modifying ->high and ->batch came from.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at