[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cbd30192-6f9f-845c-6b1c-e21ed737781d@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 13:58:06 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: cma: support sysfs
On 2/5/21 1:52 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>>> I takes your suggestion something like this.
>>>>
>>>> [alloc_range] could be order or range by interval
>>>>
>>>> /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-A/[alloc_range]/success
>>>> /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-A/[alloc_range]/fail
>>>> ..
>>>> ..
>>>> /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-Z/[alloc_range]/success
>>>> /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-Z/[alloc_range]/fail
>
> The interface above seems to me the most useful actually, if by
> [alloc_range] you mean the different allocation orders. This would
> cover Minchan's per-CMA failure tracking and would also allow us to
> understand what kind of allocations are failing and therefore if the
> problem is caused by pinning/fragmentation or by over-utilization.
>
I agree. That seems about right, now that we've established that
cma areas are a must-have.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists