[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4MZdwn2-Pd_58B+vXKOyPybdfx4FPRvxNaADnDCryo7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:21:18 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Introduce ZONE_CMA
2016-08-29 18:27 GMT+09:00 Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> js1304@...il.com writes:
>
>> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Changes from v4
>> o Rebase on next-20160825
>> o Add general fix patch for lowmem reserve
>> o Fix lowmem reserve ratio
>> o Fix zone span optimizaion per Vlastimil
>> o Fix pageset initialization
>> o Change invocation timing on cma_init_reserved_areas()
>
> I don't see much information regarding how we interleave between
> ZONE_CMA and other zones for movable allocation. Is that explained in
> any of the patch ? The fair zone allocator got removed by
> e6cbd7f2efb433d717af72aa8510a9db6f7a7e05
Interleaving would not work since the fair zone allocator policy is removed.
I don't think that it's a big problem because it is just matter of
timing to fill
up the memory. Eventually, memory on ZONE_CMA will be fully used in
any case.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists