[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200311232141.GA181064@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:21:41 -0700
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@...com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc,cma: conditionally prefer cma pageblocks
for movable allocations
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:03:58AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 3/11/20 11:58 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree it should be in the noise. But please do put it behind CONFIG_CMA
> >> #ifdef. My x86_64 desktop distro kernel doesn't have CONFIG_CMA. Even if this is
> >> effectively no-op with __rmqueue_cma_fallback() returning NULL immediately, I
> >> think the compiler cannot eliminate the two zone_page_state()'s which are
> >> atomic_long_read(), even if it's just ultimately READ_ONCE() here, that's a
> >> volatile cast which means elimination not possible AFAIK? Other architectures
> >> might be even more involved.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Andrew,
> > can you, please, squash the following diff into the patch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> then please add to the result
>
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Thank you!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists