On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:37:06PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 01/24/2016 11:08 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >Hello, > > > >2016-01-23 1:38 GMT+09:00 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >>Hi, > >> > >>On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:11:12AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >>>* CMA allocator issues: > >>> (1) order zero allocation failures: > >>> We are observing order zero non-movable allocation failures in kernel > >>>with CMA configured. We don't start a reclaim because our free memory check > >>>does not consider free_cma. Hence the reclaim code assume we have enough free > >>>pages. Joonsoo Kim tried to fix this with his ZOME_CMA patches. I would > >>>like to discuss the challenges in getting this merged upstream. > >>>https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/12/95 (ZONE_CMA) > > > >As far as I know, there is no disagreement on this patchset in last year LSF/MM. > >Problem may be due to my laziness... Sorry about that. I will handle it soon. > >Is there anything more that you concern? > > > > Is that series going to conflict with the work done for ZONE_DEVICE or run > into similar problems? > 033fbae988fcb67e5077203512181890848b8e90 (mm: ZONE_DEVICE for "device memory") > has commit text about running out of ZONE_SHIFT bits and needing to get > rid of ZONE_DMA instead so it seems like ZONE_CMA would run into the same > problem. Hmm... I'm not sure. I need a investigation. What I did before is enlarging section size. Then, number of section is reduced and we need less section bit in struct page's flag. This worked for my sparsemem configuration but I'm not sure other conguration. Perhaps, in other congifuration, we can limit node bits and max number of node. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>