Re: [PATCH] mm,memory_hotplug: Explicitly pass the head to isolate_huge_page

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 12-02-19 14:45:49, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:33:29AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >  
> > >  		if (PageHuge(page)) {
> > >  			struct page *head = compound_head(page);
> > > -			pfn = page_to_pfn(head) + (1<<compound_order(head)) - 1;
> > >  			if (compound_order(head) > PFN_SECTION_SHIFT) {
> > >  				ret = -EBUSY;
> > >  				break;
> > >  			}
> > 
> > Why are we doing this, btw? 
> 
> I assume you are referring to:
> 
> > >                     if (compound_order(head) > PFN_SECTION_SHIFT) {
> > >                             ret = -EBUSY;
> > >                             break;
> > >                     }

yes.

> I thought it was in case we stumble upon a gigantic page, and commit
> (c8721bbbdd36 mm: memory-hotplug: enable memory hotplug to handle hugepage)
> confirms it.
> 
> But I am not really sure if the above condition would still hold on powerpc,
> I wanted to check it but it is a bit more tricky than it is in x86_64 because
> of the different hugetlb sizes.
> Could it be that the above condition is not true, but still the order of that
> hugetlb page goes beyond MAX_ORDER? It is something I have to check.

This check doesn't make much sense in principle. Why should we bail out
based on a section size? We are offlining a pfn range. All that we care
about is whether the hugetlb is migrateable.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs