On 10/03/2019 03:02 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > On 10/03/2019 02:35 PM, Qian Cai wrote: >> >>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Anshuman Khandual <Anshuman.Khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Having unmovable pages on a given pageblock should be reported correctly >>> when required with REPORT_FAILURE flag. But there can be a scenario where a >>> reserved page in the page block will get reported as a generic "unmovable" >>> reason code. Instead this should be changed to a more appropriate reason >>> code like "Reserved page". >> Isn’t this redundant as it dumps the flags in dump_page() anyway? > Even though page flags does contain reserved bit information, the problem > is that we are explicitly printing the reason for this page dump. In this > case it is caused by the fact that it is a reserved page. > > page dumped because: <reason> > > The proposed change makes it explicit that the dump is caused because a > non movable page with reserved bit set. It also helps in differentiating > between reserved bit condition and the last one "if (found > count)" Instead, will it better to rename the reason codes as 1. "Unmovable (CMA)" 2. "Unmovable (Reserved)" 3. "Unmovable (Private/non-LRU)"
