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
