Re: [PATCH] mm, memory_hotplug: teach has_unmovable_pages about of LRU migrateable pages

[Baoquan He]

On 11/05/18 at 06:10pm, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 05-11-18 22:23:08, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 11/05/18 at 01:38pm, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 05-11-18 18:25:20, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > 
> > > > On 11/05/18 at 10:28am, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or something like this. Ugly as hell, no question about that. I also
> > > > > have to think about this some more to convince myself this will not
> > > > > result in an endless loop under some situations.
> > > > 
> > > > It failed. Paste the log and patch diff here, please help check if I made
> > > > any mistake on manual code change. The log is at bottom.
> > > 
> > > The retry patch is obviously still racy, it just makes the race window
> > > slightly smaller and I hoped it would catch most of those races but this
> > > is obviously not the case.
> > > 
> > > I was thinking about your MIGRATE_MOVABLE check some more and I still do
> > > not like it much, we just change migrate type at many places and I have
> > > hard time to actually see this is always safe wrt. to what we need here.
> > > 
> > > We should be able to restore the zone type check though. The
> > > primary problem fixed by 15c30bc09085 ("mm, memory_hotplug: make
> > > has_unmovable_pages more robust") was that early allocations made it to
> > > the zone_movable range. If we add the check _after_ the PageReserved()
> > > check then we should be able to rule all bootmem allocation out.
> > > 
> > > So what about the following (on top of the previous patch which makes
> > > sense on its own I believe).
> > 
> > Yes, I think this looks very reasonable and should be robust.
> > 
> > Have tested it, hot removing 4 hotpluggable nodes continusously
> > succeeds, and then hot adding them back, still works well.
> > 
> > So please feel free to add my Tested-by or Acked-by.
> > 
> > Tested-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > or
> > Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks for retesting! Does this apply to both patches?

Sorry, don't get it. I just applied this on top of linus's tree and
tested. Do you mean applying it on top of previous code change?