From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: m.szyprowski@samsung.com (Marek Szyprowski) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:48:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCHv24 00/16] Contiguous Memory Allocator In-Reply-To: References: <1333462221-3987-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Message-ID: <00c201cd17af$17a3aa50$46eafef0$%szyprowski@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:20 PM Sandeep Patil wrote: > >> This is (yet another) update of CMA patches. > > > > > > How well CMA is supposed to work if you have mlocked processes? I've > > been testing these patches, and noticed that by creating a small mlocked > > process you start to get plenty of test_pages_isolated() failure warnings, > > and bigger allocations will always fail. > > CMIIW, I think mlocked pages are never migrated. The reason is because > __isolate_lru_pages() does not isolate Unevictable pages right now. > > Minchan added support to allow this but the patch was dropped. > > See the discussion at : https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/29/295 Right, we are aware of this limitation. We are working on solving it but we didn't consider it a blocker for the core CMA patches. Such issues can be easily fixed with the incremental patches. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski Samsung Poland R&D Center