On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:12:45 +0800 "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > According to current CMA utilization policy, an alloc_pages(GFP_USER) > could 'steal' UNMOVABLE & RECLAIMABLE page blocks via the help of > CMA(pass zone_watermark_ok by counting CMA in but use U&R in rmqueue), > which could lead to following alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL) fail. > Solving this by introducing second watermark checking for GFP_MOVABLE, > which could have the allocation use CMA when proper. > > -- Free_pages(30MB) > | > | > -- WMARK_LOW(25MB) > | > -- Free_CMA(12MB) > | > | > -- > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v6: update comments The patch itself is identical to the v5 patch. So either you meant "update changelog" above or you sent the wrong diff? Also, have we resolved any concerns regarding possible performance impacts of this change?
