From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f199.google.com (mail-pf0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0D383096 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f199.google.com with SMTP id w128so41775877pfd.3 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com. [148.163.156.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g8si33847921pan.207.2016.08.30.05.41.02 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u7UCeuBx078818 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:41:02 -0400 Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com (e17.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.207]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2558r4vbmw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:41:02 -0400 Received: from localhost by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:40:57 -0400 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] mm/cma: introduce new zone, ZONE_CMA In-Reply-To: <87vayisfx3.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1472447255-10584-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <1472447255-10584-3-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <87vayisfx3.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:10:46 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <87pooqsa41.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: js1304@gmail.com, Andrew Morton Cc: Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , mgorman@techsingularity.net, Laura Abbott , Minchan Kim , Marek Szyprowski , Michal Nazarewicz , Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes: > .... > >> static inline void check_highest_zone(enum zone_type k) >> { >> - if (k > policy_zone && k != ZONE_MOVABLE) >> + if (k > policy_zone && k != ZONE_MOVABLE && !is_zone_cma_idx(k)) >> policy_zone = k; >> } >> > > > Should we apply policy to allocation from ZONE CMA ?. CMA reserve > happens early and may mostly come from one node. Do we want the > CMA allocation to fail if we use mbind(MPOL_BIND) with a node mask not > including that node on which CMA is reserved, considering CMA memory is > going to be used for special purpose. Looking at this again, I guess CMA alloc is not going to depend on memory policy, but this is for other movable allocation ? -aneesh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758304AbcH3MlH (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:41:07 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:38742 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755916AbcH3MlF (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:41:05 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: js1304@gmail.com, Andrew Morton Cc: Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , mgorman@techsingularity.net, Laura Abbott , Minchan Kim , Marek Szyprowski , Michal Nazarewicz , Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] mm/cma: introduce new zone, ZONE_CMA In-Reply-To: <87vayisfx3.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1472447255-10584-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <1472447255-10584-3-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <87vayisfx3.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:10:46 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16083012-0040-0000-0000-000001310B1B X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00005674; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000184; SDB=6.00751609; UDB=6.00355257; IPR=6.00524412; BA=6.00004679; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00012516; XFM=3.00000011; UTC=2016-08-30 12:40:55 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16083012-0041-0000-0000-0000050C1B42 Message-Id: <87pooqsa41.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-08-30_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=1 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1608300123 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes: > .... > >> static inline void check_highest_zone(enum zone_type k) >> { >> - if (k > policy_zone && k != ZONE_MOVABLE) >> + if (k > policy_zone && k != ZONE_MOVABLE && !is_zone_cma_idx(k)) >> policy_zone = k; >> } >> > > > Should we apply policy to allocation from ZONE CMA ?. CMA reserve > happens early and may mostly come from one node. Do we want the > CMA allocation to fail if we use mbind(MPOL_BIND) with a node mask not > including that node on which CMA is reserved, considering CMA memory is > going to be used for special purpose. Looking at this again, I guess CMA alloc is not going to depend on memory policy, but this is for other movable allocation ? -aneesh