[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfe870da-89a4-cac7-814b-0c3a540d25c0@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:45:30 +1000
From: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, shan.gavin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] mm/page_reporting: Make page reporting work on
arm64 with 64KB page size
On 6/26/21 12:18 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 7:20 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> The page reporting threshold is currently equal to @pageblock_order, which
>> is 13 and 512MB on arm64 with 64KB base page size selected. The page
>> reporting won't be triggered if the freeing page can't come up with a free
>> area like that huge. The condition is hard to be met, especially when the
>> system memory becomes fragmented.
>>
>> This series intends to solve the issue by having page reporting threshold
>> as 5 (2MB) on arm64 with 64KB base page size. The patches are organized as:
>>
>> PATCH[1/4] Fix some coding style in __page_reporting_request().
>> PATCH[2/4] Represents page reporting order with variable so that it can
>> be exported as module parameter.
>> PATCH[3/4] Allows the device driver (e.g. virtio_balloon) to specify
>> the page reporting order when the device info is registered.
>> PATCH[4/4] Specifies the page reporting order to 5, corresponding to
>> 2MB in size on ARM64 when 64KB base page size is used.
>>
>> Changelog
>> =========
>> v5:
>> * Restore @page_reporting_order to @pageblock_order when
>> device is registered in PATCH[2/4] to keep "git bisect"
>> friendly at least. (Alex)
>
> These latest changes address the concerns I had.
>
Thanks again for your review, Alex. However, v4 was merged and it's fine
since v5 only resolves 'git-bisect' friendly issue on PATCH[v4 2/4].
Thanks,
Gavin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists