[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170825002031.GD29701@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:20:31 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: don't reserve ZONE_HIGHMEM for
ZONE_MOVABLE request
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:41:58AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 07:45 AM, js1304@...il.com wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> >
> > Freepage on ZONE_HIGHMEM doesn't work for kernel memory so it's not that
> > important to reserve. When ZONE_MOVABLE is used, this problem would
> > theorectically cause to decrease usable memory for GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE
> > allocation request which is mainly used for page cache and anon page
> > allocation. So, fix it.
> >
> > And, defining sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio array by MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 size
> > makes code complex. For example, if there is highmem system, following
> > reserve ratio is activated for *NORMAL ZONE* which would be easyily
> > misleading people.
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> > 32
> > #endif
> >
> > This patch also fix this situation by defining sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio
> > array by MAX_NR_ZONES and place "#ifdef" to right place.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>
> Looks like I did that almost year ago, so definitely had to refresh my
> memory now :)
>
> Anyway now I looked more thoroughly and noticed that this change leaks
> into the reported sysctl. On a 64bit system with ZONE_MOVABLE:
>
> before the patch:
> vm.lowmem_reserve_ratio = 256 256 32
>
> after the patch:
> vm.lowmem_reserve_ratio = 256 256 32 2147483647
>
> So if we indeed remove HIGHMEM from protection (c.f. Michal's mail), we
> should do that differently than with the INT_MAX trick, IMHO.
Hmm, this is already pointed by Minchan and I have answered that.
lkml.kernel.org/r/<20170421013243.GA13966@...304-desktop>
If you have a better idea, please let me know.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists