From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f69.google.com (mail-oi0-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197956B0038 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 03:56:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f69.google.com with SMTP id w136so144419271oie.2 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lgeamrelo13.lge.com (LGEAMRELO13.lge.com. [156.147.23.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c131si4599073ioe.31.2016.08.31.00.56.16 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:03:00 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Introduce ZONE_CMA Message-ID: <20160831080300.GB22757@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> References: <1472447255-10584-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <8737lnudq6.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87shtmsfpy.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87shtmsfpy.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Laura Abbott , Minchan Kim , Marek Szyprowski , Michal Nazarewicz , Vlastimil Babka , Linux Memory Management List , LKML On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 04:09:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Joonsoo Kim writes: > > > 2016-08-29 18:27 GMT+09:00 Aneesh Kumar K.V : > >> js1304@gmail.com writes: > >> > >>> From: Joonsoo Kim > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Changes from v4 > >>> o Rebase on next-20160825 > >>> o Add general fix patch for lowmem reserve > >>> o Fix lowmem reserve ratio > >>> o Fix zone span optimizaion per Vlastimil > >>> o Fix pageset initialization > >>> o Change invocation timing on cma_init_reserved_areas() > >> > >> I don't see much information regarding how we interleave between > >> ZONE_CMA and other zones for movable allocation. Is that explained in > >> any of the patch ? The fair zone allocator got removed by > >> e6cbd7f2efb433d717af72aa8510a9db6f7a7e05 > > > > Interleaving would not work since the fair zone allocator policy is removed. > > I don't think that it's a big problem because it is just matter of > > timing to fill > > up the memory. Eventually, memory on ZONE_CMA will be fully used in > > any case. > > Does that mean a CMA allocation will now be slower because in most case we > will need to reclaim ? The zone list will now have ZONE_CMA in the > beginning right ? ZONE_CMA will be used first but I don't think that CMA allocation will be slower. In most case, memory would be fully used (usually by page cache). So, we need reclaim or migration in any case. 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: email@kvack.org