From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15703107A8; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 03:27:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706671657; cv=none; b=splrjT7XSDxUXRe1XkAUmSGnRXEUFPRCmPrvg7AAyJVrAVczIlSBEkOJ2qXPGupnJ6Gr4ETU1mgsjY7SuVLksZD8IhRM27tZxHc2S/ihEoXqhIaj+6opw4V+rQBNMAIgGmboldp/cQv6mbxDmJv8AkgmNhLfQE571D+bUK11Vjk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706671657; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fYqycNloGpwsMkxeexPEkQZeco4zUIcyy5vzedaRkTg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=lVdvCLZ6af9MyoWc91Gy6DxPfE8ttE2IgWcBZEucSD24gxeZCxBzxLMPsCaU/0UYES7u0aBhmWjGgfWZL7E1O/qcW4MvZrJcSLboauh6vRlKf6hzFjr2/mOr3lPON5DEEmmLwCxT+KLUTkysVEof2ZW5gq2T3UKeyYPwN8xJsZ8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D55EDA7; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.163.41.195] (unknown [10.163.41.195]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FBBE3F5A1; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:27:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:57:19 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 04/35] mm: page_alloc: Partially revert "mm: page_alloc: remove stale CMA guard code" Content-Language: en-US To: Alexandru Elisei Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, maz@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, mhiramat@kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org, hughd@google.com, pcc@google.com, steven.price@arm.com, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com, david@redhat.com, eugenis@google.com, kcc@google.com, hyesoo.yu@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240125164256.4147-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <20240125164256.4147-5-alexandru.elisei@arm.com> <966a1a84-76dc-40da-bde2-251d2a81ee31@arm.com> <3983416f-b613-42c7-bb42-d3ab268ea1be@arm.com> From: Anshuman Khandual In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/30/24 17:27, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:04:02AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> >> >> On 1/29/24 17:16, Alexandru Elisei wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 02:31:23PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/25/24 22:12, Alexandru Elisei wrote: >>>>> The patch f945116e4e19 ("mm: page_alloc: remove stale CMA guard code") >>>>> removed the CMA filter when allocating from the MIGRATE_MOVABLE pcp list >>>>> because CMA is always allowed when __GFP_MOVABLE is set. >>>>> >>>>> With the introduction of the arch_alloc_cma() function, the above is not >>>>> true anymore, so bring back the filter. >>>> >>>> This makes sense as arch_alloc_cma() now might prevent ALLOC_CMA being >>>> assigned to alloc_flags in gfp_to_alloc_flags_cma(). >>> >>> Can I add your Reviewed-by tag then? >> >> I think all these changes need to be reviewed in their entirety >> even though some patches do look good on their own. For example >> this patch depends on whether [PATCH 03/35] is acceptable or not. >> >> I would suggest separating out CMA patches which could be debated >> and merged regardless of this series. > > Ah, I see, makes sense. Since basically all the core mm changes are there > to enable dynamic tag storage for arm64, I'll hold on until the series > stabilises before separating the core mm from the arm64 patches. Fair enough but at least could you please separate out this particular patch right away and send across. mm: cma: Don't append newline when generating CMA area name