[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170831014048.GA24271@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:40:49 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/cma: manage the memory of the CMA area by using
the ZONE_MOVABLE
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:16:18AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 08:36 AM, js1304@...il.com wrote:
> > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
> >
> > 0. History
> >
> > This patchset is the follow-up of the discussion about the
> > "Introduce ZONE_CMA (v7)" [1]. Please reference it if more information
> > is needed.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > [1]: lkml.kernel.org/r/1491880640-9944-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@....com
> > [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/15/623
> > [3]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg100562.html
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>
> The previous version has introduced ZONE_CMA, so I would think switching
> to ZONE_MOVABLE is enough to drop previous reviews. Perhaps most of the
> code involved is basically the same, though?
Yes, most of the code involved is the same. I considered to drop
previous review tags but most of the code and concept is the same so I
decide to keep review tags. I should mention it in cover-letter but I
forgot to mention it. Sorry about that.
> Anyway I checked the current patch and did some basic tests with qemu,
> so you can keep my ack.
Thanks!
>
> BTW, if we dropped NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES, could we also drop MIGRATE_CMA and
> related hooks? Is that counter really that useful as it works right now?
> It will decrease both by CMA allocations (which has to be explicitly
> freed) and by movable allocations (which can be migrated). What if only
> CMA alloc/release touched it?
I think that NR_FREE_CMA_PAGES would not be as useful as previous. We
can remove it.
However, removing MIGRATE_CMA has a problem. There is an usecase to
check if the page comes from the CMA area or not. See
check_page_span() in mm/usercopy.c. I can implement it differently by
iterating whole CMA area and finding the match, but I'm not sure it's
performance effect. I guess that it would be marginal.
Anyway, I'd like not to cause any side-effect now. After patches are
settle down on mainline, I will try to remove them as you suggested.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists