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