[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140508153433.7fcbe624549259b68659fe10@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:34:33 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Yong-Taek Lee <ytk.lee@...sung.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: DEBUG_VM checks for free_list
placement of CMA and RESERVE pages
On Thu, 8 May 2014 15:19:37 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > I also think that VM_DEBUG overhead isn't problem because of same
> > reason from Vlastimil.
>
> Guys, please read this.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/17/591
>
> If you guys really want it, we could separate it with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_CMA or CONFIG_DEBUG_RESERVE like stuff.
> Otherwise, just remain in mmotm.
Wise words, those.
Yes, these checks are in a pretty hot path. I'm inclined to make the
patch -mm (and -next) only.
Unless there's a really good reason, such as "nobody who uses CMA is
likely to be testing -next", which sounds likely :(
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists