I found 2 problems at my platform.
1st is occured when I set CMA size 528MB and total memory is 960MB.
I print some values in adjust_managed_cma_page_count(),
the total value becomes 105439 and cma value 131072.
Finally movable value becomes negative value.
The total value 105439 means 411MB.
Is the zone->managed_pages value pages amount except the CMA?
I think zone->managed_pages value is including CMA size but it's value is strange.
2nd is a kernel panic at __netdev_alloc_skb().
I'm not sure it is caused by the CMA.
I'm checking it again and going to send you another report with detail call-stacks.
2014-05-30 오후 11:23, Joonsoo Kim 쓴 글:
> 2014-05-30 16:53 GMT+09:00 Gioh Kim <[email protected]>:
>> Joonsoo,
>>
>> I'm attaching a patch for combination of __rmqueue and __rmqueue_cma.
>> I didn't test fully but my board is turned on and working well if no frequent memory allocations.
>>
>> I'm sorry to send not-tested code.
>> I just want to report this during your working hour ;-)
>>
>> I'm testing this this evening and reporting next week.
>> Have a nice weekend!
>
> Thanks Gioh. :)
>
>> -------------------------------------- 8< -----------------------------------------
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 7f97767..9ced736 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -964,7 +964,7 @@ static int fallbacks[MIGRATE_TYPES][4] = {
>> [MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE] = { MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE, MIGRATE_MOVABLE, MIGRATE_R
>> #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
>> [MIGRATE_MOVABLE] = { MIGRATE_CMA, MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE, MIGRATE_U
>> - [MIGRATE_CMA] = { MIGRATE_RESERVE }, /* Never used */
>> + [MIGRATE_CMA] = { MIGRATE_MOVABLE, MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE, MIGRATE_U
>
> I don't want to use __rmqueue_fallback() for CMA.
> __rmqueue_fallback() takes big order page rather than small order page
> in order to steal large amount of pages and continue to use them in
> next allocation attempts.
> We can use CMA pages on limited cases, so stealing some pages from
> other migrate type
> to CMA type isn't good idea to me.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:54:30PM +0900, Gioh Kim wrote:
> I found 2 problems at my platform.
>
> 1st is occured when I set CMA size 528MB and total memory is 960MB.
> I print some values in adjust_managed_cma_page_count(),
> the total value becomes 105439 and cma value 131072.
> Finally movable value becomes negative value.
>
> The total value 105439 means 411MB.
> Is the zone->managed_pages value pages amount except the CMA?
> I think zone->managed_pages value is including CMA size but it's value is strange.
Hmm...
zone->managed_pages includes nr of CMA pages.
Is there any mistake about your printk?
>
> 2nd is a kernel panic at __netdev_alloc_skb().
> I'm not sure it is caused by the CMA.
> I'm checking it again and going to send you another report with detail call-stacks.
Okay.
Thanks.
I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.
These are my code.
770 #ifdef CONFIG_CMA
771 void adjust_managed_cma_page_count(struct zone *zone, long count)
772 {
773 unsigned long flags;
774 long total, cma, movable;
775
776 spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
777
778 zone->managed_cma_pages += count;
779
780 total = zone->managed_pages;
781 cma = zone->managed_cma_pages;
782 movable = total - cma - high_wmark_pages(zone);
783
784 printk("count=%ld total=%ld cma=%ld movable=%ld\n",
785 count, total, cma, movable);
786
2014-06-02 오후 3:23, Joonsoo Kim 쓴 글:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:54:30PM +0900, Gioh Kim wrote:
>> I found 2 problems at my platform.
>>
>> 1st is occured when I set CMA size 528MB and total memory is 960MB.
>> I print some values in adjust_managed_cma_page_count(),
>> the total value becomes 105439 and cma value 131072.
>> Finally movable value becomes negative value.
>>
>> The total value 105439 means 411MB.
>> Is the zone->managed_pages value pages amount except the CMA?
>> I think zone->managed_pages value is including CMA size but it's value is strange.
>
> Hmm...
> zone->managed_pages includes nr of CMA pages.
> Is there any mistake about your printk?
>
>>
>> 2nd is a kernel panic at __netdev_alloc_skb().
>> I'm not sure it is caused by the CMA.
>> I'm checking it again and going to send you another report with detail call-stacks.
>
> Okay.
>
> Thanks.
>
>