Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] CMA: aggressively allocate the pages on cma reserved memory when not used

[Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:09:34PM +0900, Gioh Kim wrote:
> 
> >>>+
> >>>   /*
> >>>    * Do the hard work of removing an element from the buddy allocator.
> >>>    * Call me with the zone->lock already held.
> >>>@@ -1143,10 +1223,15 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, int order, int start_migratetype)
> >>>   static struct page *__rmqueue(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
> >>>   						int migratetype)
> >>>   {
> >>>-	struct page *page;
> >>>+	struct page *page = NULL;
> >>>+
> >>>+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) &&
> >>
> >>You might know that CONFIG_CMA is enabled and there is no CMA memory, because CONFIG_CMA_SIZE_MBYTES can be zero.
> >>Is IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) alright in that case?
> >
> >next line checks whether zone->managed_cma_pages is positive or not.
> >If there is no CMA memory, zone->managed_cma_pages will be zero and
> >we will skip to call __rmqueue_cma().
> 
> Is IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMA) necessary?
> What about if (migratetype == MIGRATE_MOVABLE && zone->managed_cma_pages) ?

Yes, field, managed_cma_pages exists only if CONFIG_CMA is enabled, so
removing IS_ENABLE(CONFIG_CMA) would break the build.

Thanks.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>