[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aWEn2ODG0gyej0Xr@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:07:52 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com, weixugc@...gle.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, david@...nel.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, bingjiao@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/vmscan: don't demote if there is not enough
free memory in the lower memory tier
> + for_each_node_mask(nid, allowed_mask) {
> + int z;
> + struct zone *zone;
> + struct pglist_data *pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
> +
> + for_each_managed_zone_pgdat(zone, pgdat, z, MAX_NR_ZONES - 1) {
> + if (zone_watermark_ok(zone, 0, min_wmark_pages(zone),
> + ZONE_MOVABLE, 0))
Why does this only check zone movable?
Also, would this also limit pressure-signal to invoke reclaim when
there is still swap space available? Should demotion not be a pressure
source for triggering harder reclaim?
~Gregory
Powered by blists - more mailing lists