[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <43922bf4-c818-e675-2369-10097c460ac4@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:44:33 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, sthemmin@...rosoft.com,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: Pinning ZONE_MOVABLE pages
On 24.11.20 09:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 23-11-20 11:31:59, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> [...]
>> Also, we still need to take care of the fault scenario.
>
> Forgot to reply to this part. I believe you mean this to be fault at gup
> time, right? Then the easiest way forward would be to either add yet
> another scoped flag or (maybe) better to generalize memalloc_nocma_* to
> imply that the allocated memory is going to be unmovable so drop
> __GFP_MOVABLE and also forbid CMA. I have to admit that I do not
> remember why long term pin on CMA pages is ok to go to movable but I
> strongly suspect this is just shifting problem around.
Agreed.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists