From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AEEC433E0 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC6F64F21 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:26:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3FC6F64F21 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C7AC68D0001; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C4FE86B0071; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:26:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B17BF8D0001; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:26:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0181.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.181]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965C66B0070 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A86181AF5FD for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:26:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77922637296.29.C544B05 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75280602299F for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:09:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1615824570; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AQmRsMrJgayTSZHdwlDVYYq49TUgdJcRXxi2hq1NJPw=; b=SO2gSa2A19bgDx/1ooG3+n+l2xUkzD4Wvf3pkXitsLsS3IZsZxIgfq4f0cG6VIxUIjvZDL H4Iasfjyy7EjB9UnIlJqrxhIfpT9Rme1csUWCFN34mblMk9gYmsvSna06m6ro/PSX8vg3V 40DxYfKndtRLNL03mSm9rJpQRK4KIdc= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A425AE1F; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:09:23 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: David Hildenbrand Cc: zhou , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, willy@linux.intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com, pankaj.gupta.linux@gmail.com, bhe@redhat.com, ying.huang@intel.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, minchan@kernel.org, ruxian.feng@transsion.com, kai.cheng@transsion.com, zhao.xu@transsion.com, zhouxianrong@tom.com, zhou xianrong Subject: Re: [PATCH] kswapd: no need reclaim cma pages triggered by unmovable allocation Message-ID: References: <20210313083109.5410-1-xianrong_zhou@163.com> <64f8c03f-7fd9-2e03-6b90-67e2a5a45b9d@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <64f8c03f-7fd9-2e03-6b90-67e2a5a45b9d@redhat.com> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 75280602299F X-Stat-Signature: t8su4q4tp8y5fokyhxoserko3ggg7osk Received-SPF: none (suse.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf09; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mx2.suse.de; client-ip=195.135.220.15 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1615824571-486025 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon 15-03-21 16:46:33, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 13.03.21 09:31, zhou wrote: [...] > > This optimization can avoid ~3% unnecessary isolations from cma > > (cma isolated / total isolated) with configuration of total 100Mb > > cma pages. > > Can you say a few words about interaction with ZONE_MOVABLE, which behaves > similar to CMA? I.e., does the same apply to ZONE_MOVABLE? Is it already > handled? No, the movable zone shouldn't be affected as the reclaim is zone aware. The problem is that CMA doesn't belong to any particular zone. This is something Joonsoo worked in the past and I believe following up on that work has been recommended last time a similar/same approach like this patch was proposed. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs