[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538C1196.9000608@lge.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:54:30 +0900
From: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Heesub Shin <heesub.shin@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
이건호 <gunho.lee@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] CMA: aggressively allocate the pages on cma reserved
memory when not used
I found 2 problems at my platform.
1st is occured when I set CMA size 528MB and total memory is 960MB.
I print some values in adjust_managed_cma_page_count(),
the total value becomes 105439 and cma value 131072.
Finally movable value becomes negative value.
The total value 105439 means 411MB.
Is the zone->managed_pages value pages amount except the CMA?
I think zone->managed_pages value is including CMA size but it's value is strange.
2nd is a kernel panic at __netdev_alloc_skb().
I'm not sure it is caused by the CMA.
I'm checking it again and going to send you another report with detail call-stacks.
2014-05-30 오후 11:23, Joonsoo Kim 쓴 글:
> 2014-05-30 16:53 GMT+09:00 Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>:
>> Joonsoo,
>>
>> I'm attaching a patch for combination of __rmqueue and __rmqueue_cma.
>> I didn't test fully but my board is turned on and working well if no frequent memory allocations.
>>
>> I'm sorry to send not-tested code.
>> I just want to report this during your working hour ;-)
>>
>> I'm testing this this evening and reporting next week.
>> Have a nice weekend!
>
> Thanks Gioh. :)
>
>> -------------------------------------- 8< -----------------------------------------
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 7f97767..9ced736 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -964,7 +964,7 @@ static int fallbacks[MIGRATE_TYPES][4] = {
>> [MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE] = { MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE, MIGRATE_MOVABLE, MIGRATE_R
>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
>> [MIGRATE_MOVABLE] = { MIGRATE_CMA, MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE, MIGRATE_U
>> - [MIGRATE_CMA] = { MIGRATE_RESERVE }, /* Never used */
>> + [MIGRATE_CMA] = { MIGRATE_MOVABLE, MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE, MIGRATE_U
>
> I don't want to use __rmqueue_fallback() for CMA.
> __rmqueue_fallback() takes big order page rather than small order page
> in order to steal large amount of pages and continue to use them in
> next allocation attempts.
> We can use CMA pages on limited cases, so stealing some pages from
> other migrate type
> to CMA type isn't good idea to me.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> 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/
>
--
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