From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1758304AbcH3MlH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        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
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        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" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: js1304@gmail.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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