lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 0/5] introduce gcma


On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:

> On Wed 25-02-15 14:31:08, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> Hello Michal,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment :)
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue 24-02-15 04:54:18, SeongJae Park wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> include/linux/cma.h | 4 +
>>>> include/linux/gcma.h | 64 +++
>>>> mm/Kconfig | 24 +
>>>> mm/Makefile | 1 +
>>>> mm/cma.c | 113 ++++-
>>>> mm/gcma.c | 1321 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 6 files changed, 1508 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/gcma.h
>>>> create mode 100644 mm/gcma.c
>>>
>>> Wow this is huge! And I do not see reason for it to be so big. Why
>>> cannot you simply define (per-cma area) 2-class users policy? Either via
>>> kernel command line or export areas to userspace and allow to set policy
>>> there.
>>
>> For implementation of the idea, we should develop not only policy selection,
>> but also backend for discardable memory. Most part of this patch were made
>> for the backend.
>
> What is the backend and why is it needed? I thought the discardable will
> go back to the CMA pool. I mean the cover email explained why the
> current CMA allocation policy might lead to lower success rate or
> stalls. So I would expect a new policy would be a relatively small
> change in the CMA allocation path to serve 2-class users as per policy.
> It is not clear to my why we need to pull a whole gcma layer in. I might
> be missing something obvious because I haven't looked at the patches yet
> but this should better be explained in the cover letter.

I meant backend for 2nd-class clients like cleancache and frontswap.
Because implementing backend for cleancache or frontswap is subsystem's
responsibility, gcma was needed to implement those backend. I believe
second ("gcma: utilize reserved memory as discardable memory") and
third ("gcma: adopt cleancache and frontswap as second-class
clients") could be helpful to understand about that.

And yes, I agree the explanation was not enough. My fault, sorry. My
explanation was too concentrated on policy itself. I should explained
about how the policy could be implemented and how gcma did. I will explain
about that in coverletter with next version.

Thanks for your helpful and nice comment.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

>
> Thanks!
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-25 18:01    [W:0.060 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site