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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 87EFCC00319 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:53:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E226218E0 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:53:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729509AbfB0IxK (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:53:10 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:52138 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726724AbfB0IxK (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:53:10 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1R8jCpl073525 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:53:09 -0500 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qwpk12qxm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:53:08 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:53:07 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:53:04 -0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1R8r3cw32833740 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:53:03 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7E052050; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:53:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from skywalker.linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.124.31.69]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B23152052; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:53:01 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: emacs 26.1 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Andrew Morton Cc: Michal Hocko , Alexey Kardashevskiy , David Gibson , Andrea Arcangeli , mpe@ellerman.id.au, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 0/4] mm/kvm/vfio/ppc64: Migrate compound pages out of CMA region In-Reply-To: <20190226155324.e99d5200cc6293138ac5c6fa@linux-foundation.org> References: <20190114095438.32470-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <20190226155324.e99d5200cc6293138ac5c6fa@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:22:58 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19022708-0012-0000-0000-000002FABA32 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19022708-0013-0000-0000-0000213260FF Message-Id: <87mumhtxxx.fsf@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-27_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=594 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902270060 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > [patch 1/4]: OK. I guess. Was this worth consuming our last PF_ flag? That was done based on request from Andrea and it also helps in avoiding allocating pages from CMA region where we know we are anyway going to migrate them out. So yes, this helps. > [patch 2/4]: unreviewed > [patch 3/4]: unreviewed, mpe still unhappy, I expect? I did reply to that email. I guess mpe is ok with that? > [patch 4/4]: unreviewed -aneesh