Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/8] mm: mirrored memory support for page buddy allocations

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> Basically, overall I feel this series is the wrong approach but not knowing who 
> the users are making is much harder to judge. I strongly suspect that if 
> mirrored memory is to be properly used then it needs to be available before the 
> page allocator is even active. Once active, there needs to be controlled access 
> for allocation requests that are really critical to mirror and not just all 
> kernel allocations. None of that would use a MIGRATE_TYPE approach. It would be 
> alterations to the bootmem allocator and access to an explicit reserve that is 
> not accounted for as "free memory" and accessed via an explicit GFP flag.

So I think the main goal is to avoid kernel crashes when a #MC memory fault 
arrives on a piece of memory that is owned by the kernel.

In that sense 'protecting' all kernel allocations is natural: we don't know how to 
recover from faults that affect kernel memory.

We do know how to recover from faults that affect user-space memory alone.

So if a mechanism is in place that prioritizes 3 groups of allocators:

  - non-recoverable memory (kernel allocations mostly)

  - high priority user memory (critical apps that must never fail)

  - recoverable user memory (non-dirty caches that can simply be dropped,
    non-critical apps, etc.)

then we can make use of this hardware feature. I suspect this series tries to move 
in that direction.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/