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

Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-25 17:41    [W:0.065 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site