From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com (mail-pd0-f179.google.com [209.85.192.179]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28486B0069 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:25:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w10so1974847pde.38 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:25:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from lgeamrelo04.lge.com (lgeamrelo04.lge.com. [156.147.1.127]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w6si4838560pdp.190.2014.11.25.20.25.08 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:25:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54755621.6050700@lge.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:25:05 +0900 From: Gioh Kim MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] Improving CMA References: <5473E146.7000503@codeaurora.org> <20141125113225.GH2725@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20141125113225.GH2725@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman , Laura Abbott Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, SeongJae Park , minchan@kernel.org, zhuhui@xiaomi.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com 2014-11-25 i??i?? 8:32i?? Mel Gorman i?'(e??) i?' e,?: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:54:14PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote: >> There have been a number of patch series posted designed to improve various >> aspects of CMA. A sampling: >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/15/623 >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=141571797202006&w=2 >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/26/549 >> >> As far as I can tell, these are all trying to fix real problems with CMA but >> none of them have moved forward very much from what I can tell. The goal of >> this session would be to come out with an agreement on what are the biggest >> problems with CMA and the best ways to solve them. >> > > I think this is a good topic. Some of the issues have been brought up before > at LSF/MM but they never made that much traction so it's worth revisiting. I > haven't been paying close attention to the mailing list discussions but > I've been a little worried that the page allocator paths are turning into > a bigger and bigger mess. I'm also a bit worried that options such as > migrating pages out of CMA areas that are about to be pinned for having > callback options to forcibly free pages never went anywhere. > I have two question. First, is GCMA able to replace CMA? It's news to me. I need some time to check GCMA. Second, is CMA popular enough to change allocator path? Yes, I need it. But I don't know any company uses it, and nobody seems to have interest in it. -- 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