On 2015/6/16 17:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 06/16/2015 10:17 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> On 2015/6/16 15:53, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >>> On 06/04/2015 02:54 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote: >>>> >>>> I think add a new migratetype is btter and easier than a new zone, so I use >>> >>> If the mirrored memory is in a single reasonably compact (no large holes) range >>> (per NUMA node) and won't dynamically change its size, then zone might be a >>> better option. For one thing, it will still allow distinguishing movable and >>> unmovable allocations within the mirrored memory. >>> >>> We had enough fun with MIGRATE_CMA and all kinds of checks it added to allocator >>> hot paths, and even CMA is now considering moving to a separate zone. >>> >> >> Hi, how about the problem of this case: >> e.g. node 0: 0-4G(dma and dma32) >> node 1: 4G-8G(normal), 8-12G(mirror), 12-16G(normal), >> so more than one normal zone in a node? or normal zone just span the mirror zone? > > Normal zone can span the mirror zone just fine. However, it will result in zone > scanners such as compaction to skip over the mirror zone inefficiently. Hmm... > Hi Vlastimil, If there are many mirror regions in one node, then it will be many holes in the normal zone, is this fine? Thanks, Xishi Qiu > > . > -- 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>